Boris tenure at no 10 will go when or if he loses the red wall
In just over 10 days we should have indications just how likely that is, or whether Starmer is seen as a failure
The next fortnight will be very, very bad for Labour in terms of Hartlepool, mayoral elections, and Welsh Elections. They might stand still in the council elections and they might do marginally better (from a dire baseline in Scotland) All this tells us very little for GE2024, other than we are in the midst of very unusual and dynamic political times.
That is very true but I do expect the unexpected May
So the Conservatives take Hartlepool and Wales is a given. Are you expecting that they take Scotland, Greater Manchester and London too? Now if that does come to pass I am wrong and it gives us the result of GE2024.
Boris tenure at no 10 will go when or if he loses the red wall
In just over 10 days we should have indications just how likely that is, or whether Starmer is seen as a failure
The next fortnight will be very, very bad for Labour in terms of Hartlepool, mayoral elections, and Welsh Elections. They might stand still in the council elections and they might do marginally better (from a dire baseline in Scotland) All this tells us very little for GE2024, other than we are in the midst of very unusual and dynamic political times.
That is very true but I do expect the unexpected May
I've said on here before - and I will say it again - that I expect LAB to hold Hartlepool. And I think LAB will do better than some expect in Wales and Scotland. And obviously Sadiq will win, I don't now think he will get the 50% to win outright in the first round.
Not so good for LAB in England local elections outside London.
I am getting good feedback on the doorstep for Labour, and it's all down to Mark Drakeford. Some months ago I was forecasting 26 seats for Labour, despite dire opinion polls, much due to the Boris Johnson vaccine bounce. I now think Labour might get more. The Tories have been abysmal with ARTDavies a disaster for them. The Tories have been lucky that BJ has such a high profile. Plaid are very active on social media, and they are cutting through, but not to the extent they had hoped.
Boris tenure at no 10 will go when or if he loses the red wall
In just over 10 days we should have indications just how likely that is, or whether Starmer is seen as a failure
The next fortnight will be very, very bad for Labour in terms of Hartlepool, mayoral elections, and Welsh Elections. They might stand still in the council elections and they might do marginally better (from a dire baseline in Scotland) All this tells us very little for GE2024, other than we are in the midst of very unusual and dynamic political times.
That is very true but I do expect the unexpected May
I've said on here before - and I will say it again - that I expect LAB to hold Hartlepool. And I think LAB will do better than some expect in Wales and Scotland. And obviously Sadiq will win, I don't now think he will get the 50% to win outright in the first round.
Not so good for LAB in England local elections outside London.
I am getting good feedback on the doorstep for Labour, and it's all down to Mark Drakeford. Some months ago I was forecasting 26 seats for Labour, despite dire opinion polls, much due to the Boris Johnson vaccine bounce. I now think Labour might get more. The Tories have been abysmal with ARTDavies a disaster for them. The Tories have been lucky that BJ has such a high profile. Plaid are very active on social media, and they are cutting through, but not to the extent they had hoped.
You obviously have the local knowledge and have posted sensibly on this sort of thing in the past. So I agree with this, and it aligns with my remotely based view that PC generally flatter to deceive (no real interest in PC in South Wales) and Drakeford has increasingly come over as having done well on COVID.
I fear - as I said some time ago - that Covid19 may take 10,000 a day at its peak in India, even in the official figures. Reality 20-30k? That’s what you see if you extrapolate their horrific exponential curve
As a pudding course, coronavirus will turn on Africa
At the risk of stating the obvious.
Why would it only be 10,000 *AT PEAK*.
Pro-rate 10,000 per day in India is the EU *Average Rate* per day since November 2020.
Boris tenure at no 10 will go when or if he loses the red wall
In just over 10 days we should have indications just how likely that is, or whether Starmer is seen as a failure
The next fortnight will be very, very bad for Labour in terms of Hartlepool, mayoral elections, and Welsh Elections. They might stand still in the council elections and they might do marginally better (from a dire baseline in Scotland) All this tells us very little for GE2024, other than we are in the midst of very unusual and dynamic political times.
That is very true but I do expect the unexpected May
I've said on here before - and I will say it again - that I expect LAB to hold Hartlepool. And I think LAB will do better than some expect in Wales and Scotland. And obviously Sadiq will win, I don't now think he will get the 50% to win outright in the first round.
Not so good for LAB in England local elections outside London.
I am getting good feedback on the doorstep for Labour, and it's all down to Mark Drakeford. Some months ago I was forecasting 26 seats for Labour, despite dire opinion polls, much due to the Boris Johnson vaccine bounce. I now think Labour might get more. The Tories have been abysmal with ARTDavies a disaster for them. The Tories have been lucky that BJ has such a high profile. Plaid are very active on social media, and they are cutting through, but not to the extent they had hoped.
Something very strange going in here in the Western Vale. Jane Hutt posters adorning quite a few farmers' fields. I thought election signage on agricultural premises had to be blue.
RT has been shambolic, but much less catastrophic than Paul Davies before (and after) him.
Still not convinced Johnson doesn't take Cons. to most seats.
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I fear - as I said some time ago - that Covid19 may take 10,000 a day at its peak in India, even in the official figures. Reality 20-30k? That’s what you see if you extrapolate their horrific exponential curve
As a pudding course, coronavirus will turn on Africa
At the risk of stating the obvious.
Why would it only be 10,000 *AT PEAK*.
Pro-rate 10,000 per day in India is the EU *Average Rate* per day since November 2020.
EU 450 million pop - 2500-3000 per day.
India 1.37 billion pop.
Should say that EU numbers apply to UK, also, of course, as long term average.
NEW: American tourists who have been fully vaccinated against #coronavirus will be allowed to visit the European Union this summer, a top official has told @NYTimes
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?
“I have no idea who is really in charge of what any more,” said one government adviser. “It is bloody chaos.” Meanwhile, Michael Gove - Cummings’s close friend – has been effectively demoted from responsibility for Brexit and some in Whitehall are wary that they may be preparing ways to exact revenge together.
Senior Tories believe that the whole row, going back to the first stories about Cameron’s involvement with scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill, is a mess of the party’s own creation. Former advisers to Francis Maude have been blamed for those initial leaks, though the accusation has been denied. Several Tories said they believed the cries of “Tory sleaze” from Labour had been falling flat, but now have purchase.
“I have had one email about the whole Downing Street and Cameron sleaze thing until now,” said one former minister. “I had 500 about Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. But I have been out campaigning this morning and there is now chuntering. Our candidates are beginning to say that they are hearing negative things on the doorsteps.”
In the wake of the week’s extraordinary events, it is the predictability of the Cummings backlash that is still puzzling Tory MPs. “I really do not know why anyone is remotely surprised,” said one. “Don’t mess with psychos.” Another senior Tory agreed: “‘Only needle dead enemies’ is a good motto.”
I get the impression that there are rather too many people with rather too little work to do.
Or perhaps people who prefer to play on their mobile phones rather than doing the work they should be doing.
I would guess that two thirds of regular posters here are convinced that Johnson is the devil, and that it's only a matter of time before the Sheeple wake up to this fact.
i'm afraid that "ought" is not "is".
More than two thirds I think.
And they tend to think as well that anyone who doesn't share that opinion must be trolling. Not that you just have a difference of opinion.
The thing is I more or less accept that Boris Johnson is not a very pleasant person. But, it's the obsessive hatred, and the conviction that it's only a matter of time before the scales fall from the eyes of the voters that I find hard to fathom. Not to mention, the endless attempts to explain away the fact that he keeps defeating his opponents.
I cannot understand why people have to go over the top. The vitriol about last spring and the various decisions made in the heat of a pandemic. Obviously mistakes were made but to make out that somehow Boris was personally responsible seems crazy to me. It seems to me that the whole Government has followed their in general followed their scientific advisors since the pandemic began only deviating slightly.
Anyone who says that they would have defied the advisors and done something different is quite frankly lying. Anyone with half a brain cell (admittedly this applies to some in the government) would have realised that when they have to defend their action later following the advice of a scientist might be a good justification if things went wrong.
And what was the result anyway - they spent a year blaming Boris for stuff out of his control, and then when things changed and the vaccine rollout was successful it was nothing to do with Boris (my opinion), he gets the credit because his enemies have been saying it's all him for a year.
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
The problem is the idea that the colour of my skin endows me with certain attributes.
It neither makes me part of a heritage or a community or means that I have certain values or experiences.
When you start attributing certain characteristics to people with a certain skin colour, you are...
What is...
Oh yes... prejudging people based on their race.
There's a word for that. What is it again?
Ah yes, racism.
There is a really, really serious problem in the US with racism. It permeates the police in certain parts of the country and results in thousands of people dying, and hundreds of thousands (or millions) having pretty shitty life experiences.
You don't solve those problems by attributing certain characteristics to all people with certain skin hues. You solve them by identifying actual prejudice and stamping it out.
Linking an individual's character to their ethnicity is racism. But I don't see that recognizing White Privilege and White Fragility as genuine insights has to involve that. Neither imo should it get in the way of practical steps to reduce racism.
Of course I don't live in America. I know that race is a more intense matter there. And that this "woke" stuff which I happen to mostly like but seems to drive others nuts is also more intense there
Still, I think it's more sinned against than sinning. For me that's what I perceive.
“I have no idea who is really in charge of what any more,” said one government adviser. “It is bloody chaos.” Meanwhile, Michael Gove - Cummings’s close friend – has been effectively demoted from responsibility for Brexit and some in Whitehall are wary that they may be preparing ways to exact revenge together.
Senior Tories believe that the whole row, going back to the first stories about Cameron’s involvement with scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill, is a mess of the party’s own creation. Former advisers to Francis Maude have been blamed for those initial leaks, though the accusation has been denied. Several Tories said they believed the cries of “Tory sleaze” from Labour had been falling flat, but now have purchase.
“I have had one email about the whole Downing Street and Cameron sleaze thing until now,” said one former minister. “I had 500 about Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. But I have been out campaigning this morning and there is now chuntering. Our candidates are beginning to say that they are hearing negative things on the doorsteps.”
In the wake of the week’s extraordinary events, it is the predictability of the Cummings backlash that is still puzzling Tory MPs. “I really do not know why anyone is remotely surprised,” said one. “Don’t mess with psychos.” Another senior Tory agreed: “‘Only needle dead enemies’ is a good motto.”
I get the impression that there are rather too many people with rather too little work to do.
Or perhaps people who prefer to play on their mobile phones rather than doing the work they should be doing.
I would guess that two thirds of regular posters here are convinced that Johnson is the devil, and that it's only a matter of time before the Sheeple wake up to this fact.
i'm afraid that "ought" is not "is".
More than two thirds I think.
And they tend to think as well that anyone who doesn't share that opinion must be trolling. Not that you just have a difference of opinion.
The thing is I more or less accept that Boris Johnson is not a very pleasant person. But, it's the obsessive hatred, and the conviction that it's only a matter of time before the scales fall from the eyes of the voters that I find hard to fathom. Not to mention, the endless attempts to explain away the fact that he keeps defeating his opponents.
I cannot understand why people have to go over the top. The vitriol about last spring and the various decisions made in the heat of a pandemic. Obviously mistakes were made but to make out that somehow Boris was personally responsible seems crazy to me. It seems to me that the whole Government has followed their in general followed their scientific advisors since the pandemic began only deviating slightly.
Anyone who says that they would have defied the advisors and done something different is quite frankly lying. Anyone with half a brain cell (admittedly this applies to some in the government) would have realised that when they have to defend their action later following the advice of a scientist might be a good justification if things went wrong.
And what was the result anyway - they spent a year blaming Boris for stuff out of his control, and then when things changed and the vaccine rollout was successful it was nothing to do with Boris (my opinion), he gets the credit because his enemies have been saying it's all him for a year.
Also, Johnson is a slightly more erudite, political version of the Howard Stern shock jock. He has shocked. How shocking!!!
“I have no idea who is really in charge of what any more,” said one government adviser. “It is bloody chaos.” Meanwhile, Michael Gove - Cummings’s close friend – has been effectively demoted from responsibility for Brexit and some in Whitehall are wary that they may be preparing ways to exact revenge together.
Senior Tories believe that the whole row, going back to the first stories about Cameron’s involvement with scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill, is a mess of the party’s own creation. Former advisers to Francis Maude have been blamed for those initial leaks, though the accusation has been denied. Several Tories said they believed the cries of “Tory sleaze” from Labour had been falling flat, but now have purchase.
“I have had one email about the whole Downing Street and Cameron sleaze thing until now,” said one former minister. “I had 500 about Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. But I have been out campaigning this morning and there is now chuntering. Our candidates are beginning to say that they are hearing negative things on the doorsteps.”
In the wake of the week’s extraordinary events, it is the predictability of the Cummings backlash that is still puzzling Tory MPs. “I really do not know why anyone is remotely surprised,” said one. “Don’t mess with psychos.” Another senior Tory agreed: “‘Only needle dead enemies’ is a good motto.”
I get the impression that there are rather too many people with rather too little work to do.
Or perhaps people who prefer to play on their mobile phones rather than doing the work they should be doing.
I would guess that two thirds of regular posters here are convinced that Johnson is the devil, and that it's only a matter of time before the Sheeple wake up to this fact.
i'm afraid that "ought" is not "is".
More than two thirds I think.
And they tend to think as well that anyone who doesn't share that opinion must be trolling. Not that you just have a difference of opinion.
The thing is I more or less accept that Boris Johnson is not a very pleasant person. But, it's the obsessive hatred, and the conviction that it's only a matter of time before the scales fall from the eyes of the voters that I find hard to fathom. Not to mention, the endless attempts to explain away the fact that he keeps defeating his opponents.
I cannot understand why people have to go over the top. The vitriol about last spring and the various decisions made in the heat of a pandemic. Obviously mistakes were made but to make out that somehow Boris was personally responsible seems crazy to me. It seems to me that the whole Government has followed their in general followed their scientific advisors since the pandemic began only deviating slightly.
Anyone who says that they would have defied the advisors and done something different is quite frankly lying. Anyone with half a brain cell (admittedly this applies to some in the government) would have realised that when they have to defend their action later following the advice of a scientist might be a good justification if things went wrong.
And what was the result anyway - they spent a year blaming Boris for stuff out of his control, and then when things changed and the vaccine rollout was successful it was nothing to do with Boris (my opinion), he gets the credit because his enemies have been saying it's all him for a year.
All along it has been the case that decision makers cannot simply delegate their responsibility entirely to advisers and so not taking certain decisions which with hindsight (or even at the time) look correct to people will face criticism, yet it is also the case that any deviation from that official advice at the time would have been pilloried by press, politicians and the public.
The question as to where the government should have deviated from advice but did not, where it did deviate but should not have, and where it did not but in context it made sense, will be a more nuanced one than I think anyone will really care to explore. Some of the big things, on borders for example, without much political opposition at the time even though others did oppose, will make hindsight blaming harder.
I fear - as I said some time ago - that Covid19 may take 10,000 a day at its peak in India, even in the official figures. Reality 20-30k? That’s what you see if you extrapolate their horrific exponential curve
As a pudding course, coronavirus will turn on Africa
The worst day here was 20th January with 1,823 deaths. India's population is about 20 times larger than ours, so that would give about 36,500.
“I have no idea who is really in charge of what any more,” said one government adviser. “It is bloody chaos.” Meanwhile, Michael Gove - Cummings’s close friend – has been effectively demoted from responsibility for Brexit and some in Whitehall are wary that they may be preparing ways to exact revenge together.
Senior Tories believe that the whole row, going back to the first stories about Cameron’s involvement with scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill, is a mess of the party’s own creation. Former advisers to Francis Maude have been blamed for those initial leaks, though the accusation has been denied. Several Tories said they believed the cries of “Tory sleaze” from Labour had been falling flat, but now have purchase.
“I have had one email about the whole Downing Street and Cameron sleaze thing until now,” said one former minister. “I had 500 about Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. But I have been out campaigning this morning and there is now chuntering. Our candidates are beginning to say that they are hearing negative things on the doorsteps.”
In the wake of the week’s extraordinary events, it is the predictability of the Cummings backlash that is still puzzling Tory MPs. “I really do not know why anyone is remotely surprised,” said one. “Don’t mess with psychos.” Another senior Tory agreed: “‘Only needle dead enemies’ is a good motto.”
I get the impression that there are rather too many people with rather too little work to do.
Or perhaps people who prefer to play on their mobile phones rather than doing the work they should be doing.
I would guess that two thirds of regular posters here are convinced that Johnson is the devil, and that it's only a matter of time before the Sheeple wake up to this fact.
i'm afraid that "ought" is not "is".
More than two thirds I think.
And they tend to think as well that anyone who doesn't share that opinion must be trolling. Not that you just have a difference of opinion.
The thing is I more or less accept that Boris Johnson is not a very pleasant person. But, it's the obsessive hatred, and the conviction that it's only a matter of time before the scales fall from the eyes of the voters that I find hard to fathom. Not to mention, the endless attempts to explain away the fact that he keeps defeating his opponents.
Not from me. The guy is both utterly ghastly and electoral gold. In my opinion this speaks volumes and none of it good about the sort of country we're becoming but that's a different point.
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
The problem is the idea that the colour of my skin endows me with certain attributes.
It neither makes me part of a heritage or a community or means that I have certain values or experiences.
When you start attributing certain characteristics to people with a certain skin colour, you are...
What is...
Oh yes... prejudging people based on their race.
There's a word for that. What is it again?
Ah yes, racism.
There is a really, really serious problem in the US with racism. It permeates the police in certain parts of the country and results in thousands of people dying, and hundreds of thousands (or millions) having pretty shitty life experiences.
You don't solve those problems by attributing certain characteristics to all people with certain skin hues. You solve them by identifying actual prejudice and stamping it out.
Linking an individual's character to their ethnicity is racism. But I don't see that recognizing White Privilege and White Fragility as genuine insights has to involve that. Neither imo should it get in the way of practical steps to reduce racism.
Of course I don't live in America. I know that race is a more intense matter there. And that this "woke" stuff which I happen to mostly like but seems to drive others nuts is also more intense there
Still, I think it's more sinned against than sinning. For me that's what I perceive.
I grew up on a council estate as did most of my mates at the time.
We absolutely laugh at your idea of white privilege
“I have no idea who is really in charge of what any more,” said one government adviser. “It is bloody chaos.” Meanwhile, Michael Gove - Cummings’s close friend – has been effectively demoted from responsibility for Brexit and some in Whitehall are wary that they may be preparing ways to exact revenge together.
Senior Tories believe that the whole row, going back to the first stories about Cameron’s involvement with scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill, is a mess of the party’s own creation. Former advisers to Francis Maude have been blamed for those initial leaks, though the accusation has been denied. Several Tories said they believed the cries of “Tory sleaze” from Labour had been falling flat, but now have purchase.
“I have had one email about the whole Downing Street and Cameron sleaze thing until now,” said one former minister. “I had 500 about Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. But I have been out campaigning this morning and there is now chuntering. Our candidates are beginning to say that they are hearing negative things on the doorsteps.”
In the wake of the week’s extraordinary events, it is the predictability of the Cummings backlash that is still puzzling Tory MPs. “I really do not know why anyone is remotely surprised,” said one. “Don’t mess with psychos.” Another senior Tory agreed: “‘Only needle dead enemies’ is a good motto.”
I get the impression that there are rather too many people with rather too little work to do.
Or perhaps people who prefer to play on their mobile phones rather than doing the work they should be doing.
I would guess that two thirds of regular posters here are convinced that Johnson is the devil, and that it's only a matter of time before the Sheeple wake up to this fact.
i'm afraid that "ought" is not "is".
More than two thirds I think.
And they tend to think as well that anyone who doesn't share that opinion must be trolling. Not that you just have a difference of opinion.
The thing is I more or less accept that Boris Johnson is not a very pleasant person. But, it's the obsessive hatred, and the conviction that it's only a matter of time before the scales fall from the eyes of the voters that I find hard to fathom. Not to mention, the endless attempts to explain away the fact that he keeps defeating his opponents.
Agreed. Things like rewriting history to pretend he's only gone against discredited opponents - except when he entered the Mayoral race in 2007 Livingstone was firm favourite to be re-elected and initially ahead of Johnson in the polls. It took months of campaigning to turn that around. Livingstone may be discredited now but he wasn't in 2007/08.
Plus most of the claims about Johnson are either utterly irrelevant nonsense (like his personal life) or simply relate to the fact he's a politician.
Johnson's success against Livingstone in 2008 was largely due to the collapse in popularity of the Brown Government as also reflected in Labour's heavy defeat at the Crewe & Nantwich by election following Gwynneth Dunwoody's death. His margin 2012 was much narrower despite the fact that by that time Livingstone was a busted flush and a much weaker opponent.
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?
Racists.
Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.
The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.
This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.
“I have no idea who is really in charge of what any more,” said one government adviser. “It is bloody chaos.” Meanwhile, Michael Gove - Cummings’s close friend – has been effectively demoted from responsibility for Brexit and some in Whitehall are wary that they may be preparing ways to exact revenge together.
Senior Tories believe that the whole row, going back to the first stories about Cameron’s involvement with scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill, is a mess of the party’s own creation. Former advisers to Francis Maude have been blamed for those initial leaks, though the accusation has been denied. Several Tories said they believed the cries of “Tory sleaze” from Labour had been falling flat, but now have purchase.
“I have had one email about the whole Downing Street and Cameron sleaze thing until now,” said one former minister. “I had 500 about Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. But I have been out campaigning this morning and there is now chuntering. Our candidates are beginning to say that they are hearing negative things on the doorsteps.”
In the wake of the week’s extraordinary events, it is the predictability of the Cummings backlash that is still puzzling Tory MPs. “I really do not know why anyone is remotely surprised,” said one. “Don’t mess with psychos.” Another senior Tory agreed: “‘Only needle dead enemies’ is a good motto.”
I get the impression that there are rather too many people with rather too little work to do.
Or perhaps people who prefer to play on their mobile phones rather than doing the work they should be doing.
I would guess that two thirds of regular posters here are convinced that Johnson is the devil, and that it's only a matter of time before the Sheeple wake up to this fact.
i'm afraid that "ought" is not "is".
More than two thirds I think.
And they tend to think as well that anyone who doesn't share that opinion must be trolling. Not that you just have a difference of opinion.
The thing is I more or less accept that Boris Johnson is not a very pleasant person. But, it's the obsessive hatred, and the conviction that it's only a matter of time before the scales fall from the eyes of the voters that I find hard to fathom. Not to mention, the endless attempts to explain away the fact that he keeps defeating his opponents.
Good post and it seems to be getting more hysterical by the day
I bet Boris sending covid help to India will chime far greater than Cummings and his war
There are two sides to every story, but some on here think that Cummings is now their knight in shining armour to slay the one person that creates angst in their mind every minute of every day
Meanwhile the folks who were defending Cumstain last year over his County Durham jaunts are now sticking the boot in.
Funny old game.
I never defended Cummings and wanted him sacked
You also indicated on several occasions that you wished to see Johnson replaced.
Hmm the thing is, if Rory Stewart or Jeremy Hunt had been PM, we would have shut down sooner, they were looking to Asia in what to do for the Pandemic. The counter argument is, well would they have won the last election. I'd say against Jeremy Corbyn? It's Corbyn who finally broke the Red wall from always voting labour.
As to what that would have meant for Brexit. Maybe less vitriol on both sides, I don't hardcore brexiters could conclude it would have been a cave in to the EU either. EU tactics and attitudes could have led to a similar result with the EU, though less drama re Northern Island.
“I have no idea who is really in charge of what any more,” said one government adviser. “It is bloody chaos.” Meanwhile, Michael Gove - Cummings’s close friend – has been effectively demoted from responsibility for Brexit and some in Whitehall are wary that they may be preparing ways to exact revenge together.
Senior Tories believe that the whole row, going back to the first stories about Cameron’s involvement with scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill, is a mess of the party’s own creation. Former advisers to Francis Maude have been blamed for those initial leaks, though the accusation has been denied. Several Tories said they believed the cries of “Tory sleaze” from Labour had been falling flat, but now have purchase.
“I have had one email about the whole Downing Street and Cameron sleaze thing until now,” said one former minister. “I had 500 about Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. But I have been out campaigning this morning and there is now chuntering. Our candidates are beginning to say that they are hearing negative things on the doorsteps.”
In the wake of the week’s extraordinary events, it is the predictability of the Cummings backlash that is still puzzling Tory MPs. “I really do not know why anyone is remotely surprised,” said one. “Don’t mess with psychos.” Another senior Tory agreed: “‘Only needle dead enemies’ is a good motto.”
I get the impression that there are rather too many people with rather too little work to do.
Or perhaps people who prefer to play on their mobile phones rather than doing the work they should be doing.
I would guess that two thirds of regular posters here are convinced that Johnson is the devil, and that it's only a matter of time before the Sheeple wake up to this fact.
i'm afraid that "ought" is not "is".
More than two thirds I think.
And they tend to think as well that anyone who doesn't share that opinion must be trolling. Not that you just have a difference of opinion.
The thing is I more or less accept that Boris Johnson is not a very pleasant person. But, it's the obsessive hatred, and the conviction that it's only a matter of time before the scales fall from the eyes of the voters that I find hard to fathom. Not to mention, the endless attempts to explain away the fact that he keeps defeating his opponents.
Good post and it seems to be getting more hysterical by the day
I bet Boris sending covid help to India will chime far greater than Cummings and his war
There are two sides to every story, but some on here think that Cummings is now their knight in shining armour to slay the one person that creates angst in their mind every minute of every day
Meanwhile the folks who were defending Cumstain last year over his County Durham jaunts are now sticking the boot in.
Funny old game.
I never defended Cummings and wanted him sacked
You also indicated on several occasions that you wished to see Johnson replaced.
Indeed but not since his success with the vaccine rollout, the opening of the economy, and of course killing off the ESL
Boris's time will come and my preferred successor has been and is Rishi
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?
Racists.
Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.
The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.
This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.
C'mon.
No its not.
People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.
Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.
People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
The problem is the idea that the colour of my skin endows me with certain attributes.
It neither makes me part of a heritage or a community or means that I have certain values or experiences.
When you start attributing certain characteristics to people with a certain skin colour, you are...
What is...
Oh yes... prejudging people based on their race.
There's a word for that. What is it again?
Ah yes, racism.
There is a really, really serious problem in the US with racism. It permeates the police in certain parts of the country and results in thousands of people dying, and hundreds of thousands (or millions) having pretty shitty life experiences.
You don't solve those problems by attributing certain characteristics to all people with certain skin hues. You solve them by identifying actual prejudice and stamping it out.
Linking an individual's character to their ethnicity is racism. But I don't see that recognizing White Privilege and White Fragility as genuine insights has to involve that. Neither imo should it get in the way of practical steps to reduce racism.
Of course I don't live in America. I know that race is a more intense matter there. And that this "woke" stuff which I happen to mostly like but seems to drive others nuts is also more intense there
Still, I think it's more sinned against than sinning. For me that's what I perceive.
I grew up on a council estate as did most of my mates at the time.
We absolutely laugh at your idea of white privilege
Meaning only that you don't understand what it means. Because what it doesn't mean is that all white people lead privileged lives. Or that there are not black people who lead privileged lives.
“I have no idea who is really in charge of what any more,” said one government adviser. “It is bloody chaos.” Meanwhile, Michael Gove - Cummings’s close friend – has been effectively demoted from responsibility for Brexit and some in Whitehall are wary that they may be preparing ways to exact revenge together.
Senior Tories believe that the whole row, going back to the first stories about Cameron’s involvement with scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill, is a mess of the party’s own creation. Former advisers to Francis Maude have been blamed for those initial leaks, though the accusation has been denied. Several Tories said they believed the cries of “Tory sleaze” from Labour had been falling flat, but now have purchase.
“I have had one email about the whole Downing Street and Cameron sleaze thing until now,” said one former minister. “I had 500 about Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. But I have been out campaigning this morning and there is now chuntering. Our candidates are beginning to say that they are hearing negative things on the doorsteps.”
In the wake of the week’s extraordinary events, it is the predictability of the Cummings backlash that is still puzzling Tory MPs. “I really do not know why anyone is remotely surprised,” said one. “Don’t mess with psychos.” Another senior Tory agreed: “‘Only needle dead enemies’ is a good motto.”
I get the impression that there are rather too many people with rather too little work to do.
Or perhaps people who prefer to play on their mobile phones rather than doing the work they should be doing.
I would guess that two thirds of regular posters here are convinced that Johnson is the devil, and that it's only a matter of time before the Sheeple wake up to this fact.
i'm afraid that "ought" is not "is".
More than two thirds I think.
And they tend to think as well that anyone who doesn't share that opinion must be trolling. Not that you just have a difference of opinion.
The thing is I more or less accept that Boris Johnson is not a very pleasant person. But, it's the obsessive hatred, and the conviction that it's only a matter of time before the scales fall from the eyes of the voters that I find hard to fathom. Not to mention, the endless attempts to explain away the fact that he keeps defeating his opponents.
Good post and it seems to be getting more hysterical by the day
I bet Boris sending covid help to India will chime far greater than Cummings and his war
There are two sides to every story, but some on here think that Cummings is now their knight in shining armour to slay the one person that creates angst in their mind every minute of every day
I don't hate Johnson any more than I hate Starmer , Davey or Sturgeon. Nor do I think Johnson is evil in the way I think May was. But I do think he is totally unsuited to high office and, although I absolutely give him credit for some of the decisions leading up to the successful vaccine roll out, I do think he also bears direct responsibility for the unnecessary deaths of many tens of thousands of people and that, remarkably, he is still making the same mistakes now as he made a year ago.
Being 'lucky' is not characteristic arrived at through personal development and growth. It is a random act of chance. Johnson has, in many ways, been lucky but that is no reason to support him or wish to see him continue in his post as PM. His luck will, run out and at that point we could all be in a lot more trouble.
“I have no idea who is really in charge of what any more,” said one government adviser. “It is bloody chaos.” Meanwhile, Michael Gove - Cummings’s close friend – has been effectively demoted from responsibility for Brexit and some in Whitehall are wary that they may be preparing ways to exact revenge together.
Senior Tories believe that the whole row, going back to the first stories about Cameron’s involvement with scandal-hit financier Lex Greensill, is a mess of the party’s own creation. Former advisers to Francis Maude have been blamed for those initial leaks, though the accusation has been denied. Several Tories said they believed the cries of “Tory sleaze” from Labour had been falling flat, but now have purchase.
“I have had one email about the whole Downing Street and Cameron sleaze thing until now,” said one former minister. “I had 500 about Cummings and his trip to Barnard Castle. But I have been out campaigning this morning and there is now chuntering. Our candidates are beginning to say that they are hearing negative things on the doorsteps.”
In the wake of the week’s extraordinary events, it is the predictability of the Cummings backlash that is still puzzling Tory MPs. “I really do not know why anyone is remotely surprised,” said one. “Don’t mess with psychos.” Another senior Tory agreed: “‘Only needle dead enemies’ is a good motto.”
I get the impression that there are rather too many people with rather too little work to do.
Or perhaps people who prefer to play on their mobile phones rather than doing the work they should be doing.
I would guess that two thirds of regular posters here are convinced that Johnson is the devil, and that it's only a matter of time before the Sheeple wake up to this fact.
i'm afraid that "ought" is not "is".
More than two thirds I think.
And they tend to think as well that anyone who doesn't share that opinion must be trolling. Not that you just have a difference of opinion.
The thing is I more or less accept that Boris Johnson is not a very pleasant person. But, it's the obsessive hatred, and the conviction that it's only a matter of time before the scales fall from the eyes of the voters that I find hard to fathom. Not to mention, the endless attempts to explain away the fact that he keeps defeating his opponents.
Good post and it seems to be getting more hysterical by the day
I bet Boris sending covid help to India will chime far greater than Cummings and his war
There are two sides to every story, but some on here think that Cummings is now their knight in shining armour to slay the one person that creates angst in their mind every minute of every day
I don't hate Johnson any more than I hate Starmer , Davey or Sturgeon. Nor do I think Johnson is evil in the way I think May was. But I do think he is totally unsuited to high office and, although I absolutely give him credit for some of the decisions leading up to the successful vaccine roll out, I do think he also bears direct responsibility for the unnecessary deaths of many tens of thousands of people and that, remarkably, he is still making the same mistakes now as he made a year ago.
Being 'lucky' is not characteristic arrived at through personal development and growth. It is a random act of chance. Johnson has, in many ways, been lucky but that is no reason to support him or wish to see him continue in his post as PM. His luck will, run out and at that point we could all be in a lot more trouble.
For those Harry Potter fans out there, Johnson has taken an overdose of Felix Felicis........ At least that is what it looked like the day after the referendum!
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?
Racists.
Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.
The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.
This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.
C'mon.
But you infer a white person identifying as white is automatically a racist cant have it both ways
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?
Racists.
Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.
The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.
This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.
C'mon.
No its not.
People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.
Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.
People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.
I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.
You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!
That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".
As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?
Racists.
Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.
The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.
This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.
C'mon.
No its not.
People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.
Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.
People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.
I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.
You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!
That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurdinference is "on you".
As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.
And you really need to get off your high horse. Most people these days hardly even think of skin colour it is just you and your ilk that try and make it a thing. Anyone in this day and age that considers skin colour important is a bigot. You therefore are a bigot
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?
Racists.
Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.
The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.
This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.
C'mon.
No its not.
People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.
Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.
People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.
I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.
You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!
That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurdinference is "on you".
As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.
And you really need to get off your high horse. Most people these days hardly even think of skin colour it is just you and your ilk that try and make it a thing. Anyone in this day and age that considers skin colour important is a bigot. You therefore are a bigot
So every anti-racist campaigner in 2021 is a bigot, racism being a thing of the past.
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?
Racists.
Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.
The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.
This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.
C'mon.
No its not.
People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.
Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.
People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.
I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.
You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!
That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurdinference is "on you".
As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.
And you really need to get off your high horse. Most people these days hardly even think of skin colour it is just you and your ilk that try and make it a thing. Anyone in this day and age that considers skin colour important is a bigot. You therefore are a bigot
So every anti-racist campaigner in 2021 is a bigot, racism being a thing of the past.
Thanks for your contribution.
Yes most are in this country, BLM especially. It is not our job to fix other countries whether it is homophobia, transphobia, mysogyny or racism. As I commented last night you were all take a knee for blm because floyd was killed while nothing at all about taking a knee for the uighars. It is your party that patronises minorities and woman. The labour party that needs to restrict short lists because you obviously believe they have no chance against the white man. While I despise the tories personally at least the woman and ethnic minorities they have seem to have come up without help or patronising by your kind.
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
The problem is the idea that the colour of my skin endows me with certain attributes.
It neither makes me part of a heritage or a community or means that I have certain values or experiences.
When you start attributing certain characteristics to people with a certain skin colour, you are...
What is...
Oh yes... prejudging people based on their race.
There's a word for that. What is it again?
Ah yes, racism.
There is a really, really serious problem in the US with racism. It permeates the police in certain parts of the country and results in thousands of people dying, and hundreds of thousands (or millions) having pretty shitty life experiences.
You don't solve those problems by attributing certain characteristics to all people with certain skin hues. You solve them by identifying actual prejudice and stamping it out.
Linking an individual's character to their ethnicity is racism. But I don't see that recognizing White Privilege and White Fragility as genuine insights has to involve that. Neither imo should it get in the way of practical steps to reduce racism.
Of course I don't live in America. I know that race is a more intense matter there. And that this "woke" stuff which I happen to mostly like but seems to drive others nuts is also more intense there
Still, I think it's more sinned against than sinning. For me that's what I perceive.
I grew up on a council estate as did most of my mates at the time.
We absolutely laugh at your idea of white privilege
Tough, it may have been, but I bet it was tougher still if one was any colour other than white.
@Mexicanpete Annoyingly, I wrote a long post in response to yours and then accidentally deleted it when editing it!
But, this has influenced a lot of people in the soft centre/centre left.
Take how Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, has put it: ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.'
When racism is viewed in this way, it cannot be challenged through individual white people not being racist; instead, white people must be actively anti-racist. Anti-racism starts with white people acknowledging their own racism and battling the fragility prompted by threats to their privilege. From here, white people must probe deep into their psyches to root out unconscious bias before finally, in seeking to build the world anew, thinking carefully about the new reality constructed with each word uttered.
Critical race theorists have reinvented racism. Only this time around, it is not black people that are considered a problem, but white people.
How is that liberal? Or in accordance with the values of the enlightenment?
Not being funny but WTF is a "positive white identity" meant to be? What's that even mean?
I don't identify as white, I am white but I identify as myself. I share more in common with my politics for instance with Rishi Sunak than I do John McDonnell, so what has race or white identity got to do with it?
I agree that simply not being racist should be enough. But I'm curious why anyone would want a "white identity".
Well you identify as yourself except for when you identify as Mother. 😨
More seriously, you touch on a crux point. You don’t id as white because there's no need to. Nor do I. It's the default. The master key.
This is White Privilege. And White Fragility is a term for how some seem to crumble at the thought. Simply cannot handle it being discussed in this way for some reason.
For me it's an interesting way of looking at things. That's what this "superwokery" is all about imo. That's what I get from it. Some insights that are worth thinking about and can aid understanding.
And no more than that. It doesn't explain the whole of race relations or lead to the promised land. But I do think people short change themselves if they just reject it out of hand cos it sounds all wonky and difficult and not what Proper Blokes should be concerning themselves with.
Nah, I don't identify as white not because its the default, but rather because not being a racist I don't find my skin colour remotely interesting.
I have black hair, does that mean I should have black identity? For my hair colour? Or would you think that is silly?
The key to ending racism is to not think about race at all, to be colourblind, not to make race the be all and end all identity.
Perhaps the most infantile post you have ever launched upon this site. I'm truly shocked (unless you are trolling) by the total lack of intelligence or anything resembling insight demonstrated here. It's kind of a masterpiece of its kind. Three quite stupifyingly vacuous paras one after the other. The last one can just about be forgiven for being pure pollyanna and nothing worse but the rest? Oh my Lord. What a dim dim chap you are.
Sorry, Philip. I have to stop pandering and speak truth to people sometimes.
Oh stop being such a pretentious prick.
Maybe for you everything is about skin colour, but its not for me. I was brought up to treat everyone the same regardless of skin colour, and so I do. I couldn't care less and don't think about skin colour. Not because its a "default" or anything, but because its merely a colour it says nothing about who you are. Just like hair or eyes or anything else.
Not much better than the mess you sicked up in the last one. Which was -
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Oh cut the crap. Do you know who gives a shit about skin colour?
Racists.
Philip, just please THINK about you're saying. That's all I want. You don't need to agree with me or see things the same way. But you must invest something in it.
The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.
This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.
C'mon.
No its not.
People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.
Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.
People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.
I suggested that as a white man in England you weren't particularly conscious of your skin colour because it was the default.
You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!
That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurdinference is "on you".
As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.
And you really need to get off your high horse. Most people these days hardly even think of skin colour it is just you and your ilk that try and make it a thing. Anyone in this day and age that considers skin colour important is a bigot. You therefore are a bigot
So every anti-racist campaigner in 2021 is a bigot, racism being a thing of the past.
Thanks for your contribution.
Yes most are in this country, BLM especially. It is not our job to fix other countries whether it is homophobia, transphobia, mysogyny or racism. As I commented last night you were all take a knee for blm because floyd was killed while nothing at all about taking a knee for the uighars. It is your party that patronises minorities and woman. The labour party that needs to restrict short lists because you obviously believe they have no chance against the white man. While I despise the tories personally at least the woman and ethnic minorities they have seem to have come up without help or patronising by your kind.
With respect to the Boris the Paperhanger conniption, as an American cannot help but think of times when US presidents have overseen renovations of the White House. Am thinking here of major (and desperately needed) structural reconstruction of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and of course Jackie Kennedy's famous redecoration, which she showcased on national TV.
Which have occasionally generated controversy, but for the most part have been seen by Americans as reasonable & prudent maintenance and upkeep for a national landmark.
Cannot help but thinking, that British PMs would be well advised to take the same approach to No. 10 Downing Street.
By making the project one, not of personal convenience, but rather national significance. Not for the current residents as much as for future ones.
Just saying.
The White House is your answer to Buckingham Palace.
A nearer equivalent would be the money spent on Number One Observatory Circle, which I believe was first outfitted by the Rockefellers at their own expense and has been renovated several times since, most often with the decor paid for by private donations and the fabric paid for by the Navy (I think).
My point is that British PMs would be better off making refurbishment of No. 10 a PUBLIC matter and not a PRIVATE one.
Yes, of course I realize that Buck House = White House.
BUT do the Great British Public think of No. 10 Downing Street as a private residence, and the wallpaper of whatever as of only private concern to the occupants? Doubt it!
Comments
https://reason.com/2016/10/14/watch-leftist-students-say-science-is-ra/
And Labour to do well in Scotland is possible
I now think Labour might get more.
The Tories have been abysmal with ARTDavies a disaster for them. The Tories have been lucky that BJ has such a high profile.
Plaid are very active on social media, and they are cutting through, but not to the extent they had hoped.
Why would it only be 10,000 *AT PEAK*.
Pro-rate 10,000 per day in India is the EU *Average Rate* per day since November 2020.
EU 450 million pop - 2500-3000 per day.
India 1.37 billion pop.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1386433042621685765
RT has been shambolic, but much less catastrophic than Paul Davies before (and after) him.
Still not convinced Johnson doesn't take Cons. to most seats.
"As a white man in England I'm not conscious of my skin colour because I'm not a racist."
A sentiment of quite breathtaking yuck. By large and equal amounts vapid, fatuous, crass and ignorant. Pretty offensive too if you think about it. Not to me in particular. It’s offensive to anyone with an actual interest in this subject rather than using it as a hook on which to hang cheap, braindead attempts at signaling a virtue which it's crystal clear you don't possess.
You're of limited intelligence - no crime - but you're also something far worse. A total phony.
I see you. 👀
Very believable, although I suspect it’s probably bullshit.
Popcorn!
Have they given up on Boris?
Welcome relief for tourism industry
Will the UK follow suit?
https://twitter.com/DarrenGBNews/status/1386431385410314240?s=20
And will the EU follow suit for the UK.......
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1386431817259962368?s=20
Racists.
So:
1 Does Dom have the tapes?
2 What does Dom want?
3 How does everyone survive this?
They've been very anti-Boris since the Editor changed.
Anyone who says that they would have defied the advisors and done something different is quite frankly lying. Anyone with half a brain cell (admittedly this applies to some in the government) would have realised that when they have to defend their action later following the advice of a scientist might be a good justification if things went wrong.
And what was the result anyway - they spent a year blaming Boris for stuff out of his control, and then when things changed and the vaccine rollout was successful it was nothing to do with Boris (my opinion), he gets the credit because his enemies have been saying it's all him for a year.
Raab and truss are similar odds.
I think raab is the better bet.
Of course I don't live in America. I know that race is a more intense matter there. And that this "woke" stuff which I happen to mostly like but seems to drive others nuts is also more intense there
Still, I think it's more sinned against than sinning. For me that's what I perceive.
The question as to where the government should have deviated from advice but did not, where it did deviate but should not have, and where it did not but in context it made sense, will be a more nuanced one than I think anyone will really care to explore. Some of the big things, on borders for example, without much political opposition at the time even though others did oppose, will make hindsight blaming harder.
We absolutely laugh at your idea of white privilege
The Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies had *better* be on page 3.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-46397261
The inference is that a black person in England who is conscious of being black, identifies as black, is by consequence a racist.
This is making a mockery of the subject. It's showing it no respect.
C'mon.
As to what that would have meant for Brexit. Maybe less vitriol on both sides, I don't hardcore brexiters could conclude it would have been a cave in to the EU either. EU tactics and attitudes could have led to a similar result with the EU, though less drama re Northern Island.
Boris's time will come and my preferred successor has been and is Rishi
And I did not give him my member vote
People are free to have other opinions. Some white people identify as being white, that's on them. Some don't, including me.
Some black people will identify as being black, that's on them. Others don't.
People are individuals. If you try and put everyone of a certain colour or whatever into a box, then that is racist. You are inferring stuff, that's your own prejudices doing so not mine.
You said no it has nothing to do with that. It's because you're not a racist!
That's on the record, I'm afraid. The sentiment and it's clear and absurd inference is "on you".
As I say, you need to think before you say stuff. If you don't you end up in this sort of mess. It's not the first time, let's face it.
Thanks for your contribution.
But you despise a lot of "kinds", don't you?
So I shouldn't feel picked on.