Why replacing Boris Johnson will not be enough – politicalbetting.com

rottenborough said:

Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes

At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’

@TimesRadio

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1540989060046626817

====

Jeez. Who let this idiot near a microphone?

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

If you have no interest, why all the above comments ?
And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ?
(I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)

The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.

Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…

I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).

I think it's much more complicated than that.

The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.

Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.

It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.

Cookie said:

Northern_Al said:

Cookie said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.


But, you've got to understand this isn't really
about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to
inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and
guilt about its past into future generations, and
is thus highly political.

Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools

Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right

I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes.
You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.

Save your money - you don't get that in most state secondary schools these days. And as for "the council can set the agenda" - nonsense. 80% of secondary schools are academies or free schools, where the council has no power whatsoever. And in the remaining 20%, councils don't have any real say. It's not like the LEAs of the 1980s. If state schools are too 'woke', blame the DfE, not the councils.

Yes, true.
I'd instinctively expect private schools to be the least woke, followed by those run by academy trusts, followed by those run by councils. But the evidence so far doesn't seem to bear this out.

Carnyx said:

rottenborough said:

Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes

At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’

@TimesRadio

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1540989060046626817

====

Jeez. Who let this idiot near a microphone?

Is he an idiot? He got to be a government minister the last time round. Shame about the results, though: as Wiki says:
"Carmichael retained his seat at the 2015 general election, the only Liberal Democrat in Scotland out of 11 MPs elected in 2010 who managed to do so. The Liberal Democrats also lost the majority of their seats in the rest of the UK, and Carmichael was one of only eight Liberal Democrat MPs returned to Parliament."

But his, erm, comments on Ms Sturgeon and the French Consul-General had embarrassing results too.

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes

At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’

@TimesRadio

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1540989060046626817

====

Jeez. Who let this idiot near a microphone?

Someone misses the coalition days, which I get, but nows not the time Alistair.

IshmaelZ said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

If you have no interest, why all the above comments ?
And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ?
(I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)

The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.

Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…

I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).

I think it's much more complicated than that.

The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.

Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.

It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.

The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.

I would argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills and similar, was the also important in the process.

The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it

Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward

Lots of nuances...

French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it

The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see

Leon said:

@dyedwoolie

The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states

People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people

Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife

Cookie said:

Leon said:

@dyedwoolie

The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states

People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people

Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife

Abortion is such a depressingly technical thing to fall out about.
What the debate surely comes down to is the point at which the rights of the unborn child outweigh that of the mother. Conception? A heartbeat? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? Birth? A decent philosophical/medical/sociological case can be made for any of these.
But I'd say if you can't see your opponent might also have a legitimate argument you merit no lace in the debate.

Unpopular said:

Leon said:

@dyedwoolie

The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states

People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people

Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife

Should certainly reverse the electoral trends in the 'New South', Texas being the notable one. Say you're young, liberal and mobile, moved to Texas to build something or work for someone building something, attracted by cheaper cost of living. Having sex just became a whole lot riskier and while I'm told some like an element of danger and risk, I'm not sure this is what they mean. It'll make these states redder.

I'm still not fully convinced by Civil War 2.0 but the House is looking pretty divided.

Cookie said:

A decent philosophical/medical/sociological case can be made for any of these.

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
3m
Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun
Lab 39% 311 seats
Con 33% 249
Lib Dem 12% 16
Green 5% 1
Starmer PM with Lib Dem support

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1541013243346436096

MoonRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
3m
Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun
Lab 39% 311 seats
Con 33% 249
Lib Dem 12% 16
Green 5% 1
Starmer PM with Lib Dem support

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1541013243346436096

Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.

After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

If you have no interest, why all the above comments ?
And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ?
(I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)

The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.

Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…

I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).

I think it's much more complicated than that.

The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.

Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.

It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.

The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.

I would argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills and similar, was the also important in the process.

The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it

Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward

Lots of nuances...

French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it

The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see

I always saw that as more a tribute to British out of sight, out of mind hypocrisy rather than a great attachment to virtue. As long as there weren’t whipping posts on The Mall everything was just dandy.

Or Princes Street or Glasgow Green for that matter. Bit shit for the slaves the colonial dandies imported and exported as personal servants, valets, etc. without knowing that slavery wasn't on. Even when you brought a case (whjich took luck and cash) you were lucky if it got sorted in reasonable time.

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/learning/slavery/slavery-freedom-or-perpetual-servitude-the-joseph-knight-case

Decent novel on the case by James Robertson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Knight_(novel)

Thinking on my initial point, slightly odd that people would feel fastidious about public cruelty given the existing appetite for it. Perhaps it was more the whiff of ghastly commerce paying for all that lovely stuff that the great and good didn’t want emanating.

rottenborough said:

wooliedyed said:

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
3m
Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun
Lab 39% 311 seats
Con 33% 249
Lib Dem 12% 16
Green 5% 1
Starmer PM with Lib Dem support

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1541013243346436096

About 3.5% swingback to ungovernable territory, 1% swingback to needing Nat votes......
Although higher LD seats seems very likely.
We arent far off total mess territory

Total mess would be better than the current administration frankly.

Andy_JS said:

"TOM BOWER: Bags stuffed with money like a scene from Only Fools and Horses. Prince Charles has jeopardised his reign"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10953305/TOM-BOWER-Prince-Charles-jeopardised-reign-Del-Boy-esque-bags-stuffed-money.html

Leon said:

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

Nigelb said:

The third SC decision which didn’t get much notice last week.

Alito’s Attack on Miranda Warnings Is Worse Than It Seems
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/miranda-warnings-supreme-court-alito-kagan.html
The justice lays the groundwork for a direct blow to the right against self-incrimination.

Apparently the SCOTUS is also gunning for Affirmative action

It occurred to me this morning as I sat in my alcohol-free hotel having breakfast, what if the SCOTUS decision on Roe-v-Wade is not some anomalous case temporarily halting the progressive tide, but is actually a harbinger: of the turning of the tide. What if America decides it quite likes this seriously conservative new agenda - if it leads to safer cities and better education and No More Woke and fewer fat people? What if America becomes, not Gilead, but Singapore with guns? An American China?

I consider it possible. And, just to make this clear, I reckon their decision on abortion was harmful and dangerous

Given the SC also struck down a century old law in NYC regarding concealed carry, I think it is unlikely to lead to safer cities.

Unless you are one of the people who think that the more people that carry guns, the safer everyone is. (The parents in Ulvade, Texas might disagree with you.)

It’s not impossible. Conservative, gun-owning Switzerland is notably safe

If a new hyper-conservative ethos in the USA can turn its cities into Geneva and Zurich it would, I suspect, be popular, and people would tolerate the puritan morality

This is of course unlikely but not impossible. At some point America will attempt to do something about its declining cities and rampant crime and all the rest of it - rather than stoking racial resentments which just makes it worse

IshmaelZ said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

If you have no interest, why all the above comments ?
And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ?
(I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)

The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.

Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…

I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).

I think it's much more complicated than that.

The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.

Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.

It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.

The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.

I would argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills and similar, was the also important in the process.

The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it

Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward

Lots of nuances...

French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it

The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see

Theuniondivvie said:

rottenborough said:

Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes

At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’

@TimesRadio

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1540989060046626817

====

Jeez. Who let this idiot near a microphone?

He’s obviously been reading endless PB memes about the LDs not making the most of glorious coalition with the Tories. Blue and yellow a pretty fashionable combo, mind.

MoonRabbit said:

On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.

Replacing Boris could be enough.

MoonRabbit said:

On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.

Replacing Boris could be enough.

MaxPB said:

We were supposed to have some friends visit us this week from Switzerland but their flights have been cancelled, stupidly they booked an indirect via Schiphol and 1/5 flights out of there have been cancelled, mostly European ones to save the long haul revenues. Airport operators have really fucked it. Our friends are currently attempting to get the train from Zurich to London.

Hopefully our flight to Palermo for September will be fine and they resolve these capacity issues by then.

Beibheirli_C said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.

Replacing Boris could be enough.

Seriously?

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
3m
Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun
Lab 39% 311 seats
Con 33% 249
Lib Dem 12% 16
Green 5% 1
Starmer PM with Lib Dem support

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1541013243346436096

Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.

After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?

Techne 6, survation 7. ComRes are as up and down as YouGov (11, 6, 11), just leaves Redfield 9 and the last MORI mid May at 6

The mori is once a month and comes with reams of ratings and is one I have a lot of faith in.

Different methodology again. Based on 10/10 certainty to vote which should deflate the Tory score mid term in government. It was them that gave Cameron's Tories the infamous 52 to 24 lead over Labour in 2008 and 'Con GAIN Glasgow South'
Much more reliable as we approach a vote and opinion firms imo

Which brings us nicely to the Mori 10/10 certain (which as you say should weed out the unlikely to vote respondents whilst on eve of election) and the Opinium 9% lead response tinkered down to three in what they call swingback - do both these methods only account on the headline voting, or tinkered all down in the satisfaction ratings? Because best PM had Boris up there with labour does it have swingback built into that too?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

.

MaxPB said:

We were supposed to have some friends visit us this week from Switzerland but their flights have been cancelled, stupidly they booked an indirect via Schiphol and 1/5 flights out of there have been cancelled, mostly European ones to save the long haul revenues. Airport operators have really fucked it. Our friends are currently attempting to get the train from Zurich to London.

Hopefully our flight to Palermo for September will be fine and they resolve these capacity issues by then.

All the pilots died and the pb mods are hushing it up, allegedly.

Andy_JS said:

"TOM BOWER: Bags stuffed with money like a scene from Only Fools and Horses. Prince Charles has jeopardised his reign"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10953305/TOM-BOWER-Prince-Charles-jeopardised-reign-Del-Boy-esque-bags-stuffed-money.html

Leon said:

Excellently click-baity Janan Ganesh article where he asks who is more boring and insufferable, the earnest woke humourless @Kinabalu Left or the faux-philistine faux-populist @nooneonhere Right

His conclusion, the Left is even more boring, just about

“Given that I posed the question, I should stop evading the answer. By a whisker, I find the right easier to be around.”

https://www.ft.com/content/c4f5c681-ed5a-44af-9f02-2076eca87dd7

Theuniondivvie said:

ydoethur said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.

Replacing Boris could be enough.

Seriously?

Are you suggesting that if they replace him that will set the seal on their failure?

Seal on their lyin rather than a sealion obvs.

TheValiant said:

Theuniondivvie said:

rottenborough said:

Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes

At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’

@TimesRadio

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1540989060046626817

====

Jeez. Who let this idiot near a microphone?

He’s obviously been reading endless PB memes about the LDs not making the most of glorious coalition with the Tories. Blue and yellow a pretty fashionable combo, mind.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, recall in 2010 the LDs managed to get Brown to resign as Labour leader on the Monday night.... stringing Labour along and using this as a negotiating tactic with the Conservatives.

If the LD rule out working with the Conservatives on ANY level, what is the point of them? Might as well vote Labour (or Conservative).

LDLF said:

rottenborough said:

Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes

At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’

@TimesRadio

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1540989060046626817

====

Jeez. Who let this idiot near a microphone?

For the Lib Dems this is a tricky balance.

It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.

Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.

There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.

Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.

After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.

Beibheirli_C said:

IshmaelZ said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

If you have no interest, why all the above comments ?
And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ?
(I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)

The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.

Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…

I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).

I think it's much more complicated than that.

The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.

Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.

It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.

The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.

I would argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills and similar, was the also important in the process.

The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it

Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward

Lots of nuances...

French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it

The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see

I never said that they should be let off the hook. Some of the wealthiest cities of the time like Liverpool and Bristol were largely built with slave money. There is even a Slavery Tour you can go on in Liverpool where the tour guide will point out major buildings with slave motifs on them because the original builders were so proud of their slave empires. It is an eye-opener!

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

ydoethur said:

Beibheirli_C said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic, I disagree. The startling arithmetic is sooooo in favour of the Tories, Lab and Lib starting so far behind, incumbency bonus, if swap out Boris for Mourdant current polls like those quoted in header could soon change and the Tories hold onto a bit of their majority is not out of the question by any means.

Replacing Boris could be enough.

Seriously?

Are you suggesting that if they replace him that will set the seal on their failure?

Seal on their lyin rather than a sealion obvs.

They would be better off remembering Denis Healey: when you're in a hole, stop dugong.

Steller pun.

I see what you did there, but I was nearly gulled.

Dura_Ace said:

MrEd said:

Also, a lot more videos of Ukrainian air activity in recent days. May be propaganda but it certainly doesn't suggest Russian air superiority.

Neither side has much appetite for air ops in strength because a) the area is now completely saturated with SAM/MANPADS and b) ever present risk of a blue-on-blue as both sides are operating many of the same types.

LDLF said:

rottenborough said:

Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes

At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’

@TimesRadio

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1540989060046626817

====

Jeez. Who let this idiot near a microphone?

For the Lib Dems this is a tricky balance.

It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.

Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.

There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.

Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.

After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.

Theuniondivvie said:

rottenborough said:

LDLF said:

rottenborough said:

Lucy Fisher
@LOS_Fisher
👀 Alistair Carmichael hints Lib Dems cd entertain coalition at next elxn w/ Tories if Johnson goes

At present idea not a ‘realistic prospect’, but if Tories do ‘sensible, honourable thing’ & oust Johnson, ‘we cd be presented with a v different political landscape’

@TimesRadio

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1540989060046626817

====

Jeez. Who let this idiot near a microphone?

For the Lib Dems this is a tricky balance.

It is conceivable that after the next election, neither the Conservatives nor a Labour/Lib Dem coalition could command a majority without the support of, for example, the SNP.

Many Lib Dem voters, let alone Lib Dem MPs, would prefer working with Conservatives over an agreement with the SNP. I would assume that most Lib Dem voters in Scotland are likely to be unionists.

There are still members of the current Conservative government who served in the Coalition government - it's not inconceivable that behind all of the public vitriol they have a reasonable relationship with their Orange-Booker, former cabinet colleague, Ed Davey.

Carmichael's sin may be to think out loud, but the idea that the party should only entertain the notion of coalition with Labour rather than Conservatives rather defeats the purpose of the Lib Dems being their own seperate party to start with.

After all, despite what the Conservatives say, this is not a formal Lib Dem/Labour alliance - so the Lib Dems wouldn't be betraying any kind of agreement with Labour.

I just don't see what the problem with the SNP would be. Yes, it is likely they would demand a indie ref as the price of coalition but so what? Do we seriously think the Westminster government can hold the line against another vote for another five year parliament? Personally, I don't think so. And the honest truth is Sturgeon wants the vote to be "coming soon' but not actually happen because she knows she would lose it.

Why don't all those brave Unionists politicians who are obstructing indy ref II with might and main also know it?

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IshmaelZ said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

If you have no interest, why all the above comments ?
And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ?
(I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)

The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.

Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…

I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).

I think it's much more complicated than that.

The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.

Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.

It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.

The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.

I would argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills and similar, was the also important in the process.

The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it

Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward

Lots of nuances...

French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it

The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see

I always saw that as more a tribute to British out of sight, out of mind hypocrisy rather than a great attachment to virtue. As long as there weren’t whipping posts on The Mall everything was just dandy.

Or Princes Street or Glasgow Green for that matter. Bit shit for the slaves the colonial dandies imported and exported as personal servants, valets, etc. without knowing that slavery wasn't on. Even when you brought a case (whjich took luck and cash) you were lucky if it got sorted in reasonable time.

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/learning/slavery/slavery-freedom-or-perpetual-servitude-the-joseph-knight-case

Decent novel on the case by James Robertson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Knight_(novel)

Thinking on my initial point, slightly odd that people would feel fastidious about public cruelty given the existing appetite for it. Perhaps it was more the whiff of ghastly commerce paying for all that lovely stuff that the great and good didn’t want emanating.

IshmaelZ said:

Carnyx said:

Beibheirli_C said:

IshmaelZ said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Malmesbury said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

Cookie said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

Prince Charles is in serious danger of sparking a republican movement on the right.

He's gone up in my estimation though.

Our estimation of the suitability if future monarchs should not be based on whether they agree or disagree with us in their public utterances, but whether they can successfully say nothing at all.
Because if they can't, they and their institution are doomed.

Unfortunately, Prince Charles labours under the misapprehension that people are interested in what he thinks and what he has to say.

If you have no interest, why all the above comments ?
And if no one has any interest in what he has to say, why do his comments matter at all ?
(I actually agree with the point, which is why his comments don’t bother me in the slightest.)

The problem for most republicans is that, being progressive, they have to grit their teeth and admit that Prince Charles has long been on “their” side on many issues.

Oh, and the slave trade should be taught in schools. As it, er… actually is. My daughters learnt all about the triangular trade. They even appreciated my story about giving a lesson on it way back in the day…

I'd argue that more can be learnt about Britain today by learning about the triangular trade than can be learnt from anything (everything?) from 1066 to Lizzie I. So many areas of interest can spring off it: not just slavery, but the way empires grow, spread and decay; the rise of different countries; wealth; even the start of the industrial revolution (via resources and finance).

I think it's much more complicated than that.

The triangular trade ended in Britain in 1807 when the industrial revolution was only really just getting started, and the vast majority of our rise in national wealth happened well after abolition. European countries later achieved the same industrialisation and rise incomes without any recourse to slavery.

Slavery was an ethics-free solution to a labour problem in a really quite primitive global pre-capitalist economy; later, capital and the market economy proved a much better way of attracting people to do hard labour for low wages, with movement around the world to suit, that affected people in the British isles as well as overseas, and that persisted until we became more well-off and enlightened to reform.

It's a hugely complex and hotly contested period of history but no more significant than any other; I want my children to be taught about it - as I have no doubt that children are today, as I was - but have no desire it to be propagandised into stark simplicities that are grounded in our gross discomforts about the politics of the present day and manipulated by some who have more sinister motives.

The part played by modern economics and accounting - which showed that slave labour was actually less efficient is not taught enough.

I would argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_Block_Mills and similar, was the also important in the process.

The 1807 did not abolish slavery but did put significant obstacles in the way of the salve trade. The actual abolition of the trade was in 1832 and it was not a Tory government that did it

Canada abolished slavery in the 1790s so Britain was not the first, but slavery had no legal basis in the UK from the dark ages onward

Lots of nuances...

French abolished it 1795 but NB reinstated it

The British claim that it was never OK *in Britain* doesn't get them off any hooks that I can see

I never said that they should be let off the hook. Some of the wealthiest cities of the time like Liverpool and Bristol were largely built with slave money. There is even a Slavery Tour you can go on in Liverpool where the tour guide will point out major buildings with slave motifs on them because the original builders were so proud of their slave empires. It is an eye-opener!

Quite. Even small ports can have the most astounding linkages. I have been doing some helping with research on slavery and the wider implications (e.g. sugar trade, supplies for the plantations) in Scotland and it was absolutely fascinating digging into the details.

Assume you are aware of https://www.spanglefish.com/slavesandhighlanders/index.asp

Cookie said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

I did all of the above in my lessons at school, and my Oxford children's history of Britain volumes (published 1983) pulled no punches about slavery.


But, you've got to understand this isn't really
about teaching slavery in schools: it's about teaching it incessantly and in a certain way in order to
inculcate a sense of shame about Britain and
guilt about its past into future generations, and
is thus highly political.

Yes. This is how they intend to smuggle Critical Race Theory into British schools

Because it’s been SUCH a success in America and has, in no way, provoked intense loathing and a backlash on the American Right

I went to view a (private) secondary school we were considering for one of my daughters recently. It was painfully woke. "Some people are trans, get over it" declared posters all around the school. Barrages of newspaper headlines from the Independent about BLM, climate change and Brexit. "Join the equality society!", pupils were repeatedly urged. We looked in on a history lesson, which, naturally, was about slavery. Toilets for boys, toilets for girls and toilets for 'whatever'. Posters decrying the evils of gender stereotypes.
You expect this kind of shit in schools where the council can set the agenda, but it's a bit disappointing that this is also what you get if you pay for it. It was like being in Twitter.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MoonRabbit said:

Andy_JS said:

"TOM BOWER: Bags stuffed with money like a scene from Only Fools and Horses. Prince Charles has jeopardised his reign"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10953305/TOM-BOWER-Prince-Charles-jeopardised-reign-Del-Boy-esque-bags-stuffed-money.html

Why the pile on? It’s not like he criticised their beloved governments policy recently is it?

And when were there bags stuffed full of money in Only Fools and Horses?

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

IshmaelZ said:

Foxy said:

SouthamObserver said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm warming to Prince Charles.

Horrors of slavery should be taught alongside Holocaust, says Prince Charles

The Prince of Wales wants slavery to be publicly acknowledged, taught in schools and given the same national level of importance as the Holocaust.

Charles, who spoke of his “personal sorrow” at the UK’s historical links with the slave trade during his visit to Rwanda last week, will campaign for greater public awareness of slavery, which has dogged the royal family’s recent overseas tours.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/horrors-of-slavery-should-be-taught-alongside-holocaust-says-prince-charles-80jz0jcql

I’m a long time out of school, but when I was there, there seemed a massive amount of time devoted to the Nazis. Now this was the 80’s, and thus the holocaust etc was more recent and in the minds of those setting the syllabus. Some argue it’s a antique evil, but I’m not so sure.
Reframing our past to look critically at the whole world and the whole of history is not easy. Was it worse to be worked to death as a slave in a roman tin mine or on a Caribbean sugar plantation? But there certainly should be balance - you should teach the British empire story, but all sides of it. Don’t celebrate Wiberforce without wondering why it was necessary.

My O level history was driven entirely by the syllabus: Britain and Europe 1815 to 1914. I learnt more about the unification of Germany and Italy than I ever did about slavery.

Edit: The unification of Germany and the unification of Italy, not the two together - at least not as I learnt it!

Pretty much ditto - we did nothing on slavery or the Holocaust. I remember a lot on the Peninsular war, the creation of Belgium and the Reform Acts! A levels was 1848, Napoleon III, the Paris Commune, the Risorgimento and German unification.

My O level in 1981 was on British economic and social history 1700-1913. Basically enclosures, Chartism, Poor laws, canals, turnpikes, and related aspects of the industrial revolution. A bit dry at times, very little politics or military, but has been very useful for understanding modern Britain.

I was taught about the slave triangle at about the age of 9 but purely as a geographical-economic phenomenon - never a hint there was moral question marks over any of it

Charles is of course right. The slave trade was morally on a par with the holocaust, and wins by a country mile in terms of total human misery produced, despite the revoltingly batty Nazi death camp bad, splendid Empire death camp good mentality one quite often comes across.

He’s right if you include ALL the slave trades

My objection to the way it is taught is that total focus on the Atlantic slave trade (which was of course repulsive) at the exclusion of all the others. i was taught a lot about the slave trade at my state schools, and I was definitely taught it was bad, but if I had not gone on to read around the subject as an adult I would be blissfully unaware the the Islamic trade in slaves (African and white European) was much older, longer lasting, and considerably larger in absolute terms. And arguably even crueller (the use of automatic castration, for example)

But the Woke educators don’t want kids to know about this. They just want to teach White = Bad

So, you're objecting to the fact that a British history class focuses on the actions of the British?

Benpointer said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Heathener said:

Meanwhile he is talking about a third term.

He's losing it.

Good morning

He has lost it 100% and needs removing now

I’m not sure he has lost it, but only because I’m not convinced he ever had it to start with.

Parnell, one of his biographers, in the Guardian:

There have always been flashes of instability – the frothing temper, the bizarre shrieking when under pressure – but as a narcissist these traits only get worse when he is cornered as he is now. I remember friends of Johnson telling me just before he became prime minister that there was concern in the family that he was simply not sufficiently mentally stable to cope with the relentless pressures and problems of running a country.

Decades of indulgence, exceptionalism, and lack of consequence programmed him to behave in a selfish and reckless way. Imagine how he feels now that the scandals keep coming in, fully knowing there are many more, potentially even worse, to come out.

Now the economy is tanking, the health service is in crisis, and the country gripped by strikes and the slogans are falling flat. He has no clue what to do next. He never gave much thought to being prime minister (only the becoming of PM) and virtually none at all to the afterwards except the idea of getting very rich.

There have been virtually no boundaries imposed on Johnsonian conduct (by employers, party, or cabinet) but just as with children – and there is truly something of the toddler about Johnson – that does not necessarily lead to happiness. There is a hollowness in Johnson that blocks out those things in life that normally buoy us through trouble – the love of family or friends or place.

With reality at the age of 58 finally closing in on him, his one old trick of joking around will no longer do. As even people who voted for him with delight and pride now try to deny it, he is no doubt desperately trying to find another gamble with an eye-catching announcement that might buy him more time. Otherwise, he knows too well that there is only one button left in his toybox, the one marked self-destruct. He would rather not go out on a whimper but a very big bang.

That's very badly written for a biographer.

Why, what's wrong with it?

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

MoonRabbit said:

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
3m
Average of 5 latest polls 17-24 Jun
Lab 39% 311 seats
Con 33% 249
Lib Dem 12% 16
Green 5% 1
Starmer PM with Lib Dem support

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1541013243346436096

Personally I am not a fan of “poll of polls” or “average of last 5 polls” type of thing, for example is Rentoul including the Opinium with built in swingback in that? Or worse, different firms methodologies mean different average what time of month you cut it. For example we have got Kantor and an Opinium out the way in last few days, very unlikely to get a John Owls asking Starmer fans to explain for at least two weeks now. The mirror of that is polls should say 6 point or more lead for next few weeks now as fools gold excitement for Labour fans.

After Kantor and Opinium who next give the lowest lead? Yougov don’t count due to inconsistency, we could get a 2 from them but either side 7. Probably techne?

Techne 6, survation 7. ComRes are as up and down as YouGov (11, 6, 11), just leaves Redfield 9 and the last MORI mid May at 6

The mori is once a month and comes with reams of ratings and is one I have a lot of faith in.

Different methodology again. Based on 10/10 certainty to vote which should deflate the Tory score mid term in government. It was them that gave Cameron's Tories the infamous 52 to 24 lead over Labour in 2008 and 'Con GAIN Glasgow South'
Much more reliable as we approach a vote and opinion firms imo

Which brings us nicely to the Mori 10/10 certain (which as you say should weed out the unlikely to vote respondents whilst on eve of election) and the Opinium 9% lead response tinkered down to three in what they call swingback - do both these methods only account on the headline voting, or tinkered all down in the satisfaction ratings? Because best PM had Boris up there with labour does it have swingback built into that too?

I dunno. Redfield only has Starmer a small % ahead.

TheScreamingEagles said:

One for @MaxPB

'I don't know how I'll support my family': landlords' retirement dreams in tatters

Hundreds of thousands of property investors will need to find an income from elsewhere

Hundreds of thousands of pension plans are at risk as the Government’s rental sector overhaul derails the buy-to-let business model, landlords have warned.

Housing secretary Michael Gove has announced sweeping reforms of the rental sector to boost tenants’ rights. These include scrapping Section 21 “no‑fault” evictions and getting rid of fixed-term tenancies.

Two fifths of England’s landlords have invested in property to contribute to their pension, according to the Government’s English Private Landlord Survey. Across the 1.5 million landlords, this means 600,000 people will see their retirement plans affected.

Ben Cameron*, 60, has now decided to sell his 30 buy-to-lets, a portfolio he had built to fund retirement. “It is the final nail in the coffin. The Government is derailing my pension plan. I have no idea what I will do to look after my family or where I will go for security now,” he said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/buy-to-let/dont-know-how-support-family-landlords-retirement-dreams-tatters/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1656243042

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

One for @MaxPB

'I don't know how I'll support my family': landlords' retirement dreams in tatters

Hundreds of thousands of property investors will need to find an income from elsewhere

Hundreds of thousands of pension plans are at risk as the Government’s rental sector overhaul derails the buy-to-let business model, landlords have warned.

Housing secretary Michael Gove has announced sweeping reforms of the rental sector to boost tenants’ rights. These include scrapping Section 21 “no‑fault” evictions and getting rid of fixed-term tenancies.

Two fifths of England’s landlords have invested in property to contribute to their pension, according to the Government’s English Private Landlord Survey. Across the 1.5 million landlords, this means 600,000 people will see their retirement plans affected.

Ben Cameron*, 60, has now decided to sell his 30 buy-to-lets, a portfolio he had built to fund retirement. “It is the final nail in the coffin. The Government is derailing my pension plan. I have no idea what I will do to look after my family or where I will go for security now,” he said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/buy-to-let/dont-know-how-support-family-landlords-retirement-dreams-tatters/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1656243042

I can only assume the editor (or someone senior) is a buy-to-let magnate. Who else would be lapping up this utter guff?

Seriously, selling his 30 homes and has no idea what he will do with his money?

Malmesbury said:

Unpopular said:

Leon said:

@dyedwoolie

The division in North America between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states and regions is eerily similar to the division we will now see: between pro-abortion and anti-abortion states

People will move on the basis of these differences. Maybe many people

Yet another milestone on the turnpike to civil strife

Should certainly reverse the electoral trends in the 'New South', Texas being the notable one. Say you're young, liberal and mobile, moved to Texas to build something or work for someone building something, attracted by cheaper cost of living. Having sex just became a whole lot riskier and while I'm told some like an element of danger and risk, I'm not sure this is what they mean. It'll make these states redder.

I'm still not fully convinced by Civil War 2.0 but the House is looking pretty divided.

It is far too early to say that this will happen. Certainly there are Republicans who hope it will. But much of the Democrat increase in vote in Texas is from the Hispanic community. Who tend to be very, very Catholic.