"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
It’s funny in a not funny way that if an outside entity was funding calls to have California secede from the Union they would be pursued by the US for sedition etc.
Kate Ferguson @kateferguson4 · 1h EXCL: Andy Burnham rents out a £480,000 London flat which he bought partly using taxpayers’ cash – leaving him quids in.
His second home has doubled in value since he bought it 20 years ago, according to market experts.
Kate Ferguson @kateferguson4 · 1h EXCL: Andy Burnham rents out a £480,000 London flat which he bought partly using taxpayers’ cash – leaving him quids in.
His second home has doubled in value since he bought it 20 years ago, according to market experts.
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
That’s where Cameron went wrong. He should have made it a referendum on whether to hold a referendum.
I think there should always be a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. Also, if a referendum should pass, there should always be a referendum on whether to implement the results of the first referendum.
An official White House responds to Pompeo on the rumoured Iran deal.
Mike Pompeo has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about. He should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals. He’s not read into anything that’s happening, so how would he know. https://x.com/StevenCheung47/status/2058329688490086743
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
That’s where Cameron went wrong. He should have made it a referendum on whether to hold a referendum.
I think there should always be a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. Also, if a referendum should pass, there should always be a referendum on whether to implement the results of the first referendum.
See: helpful aren't I?
That is the Canadian process in a nutshell, dating from 1995. People get to know what they are voting on rather than a pig in a poke.
Sensible folk the Canadians, apart from some quislings in Alberta.
Got to be honest... this isn't a brilliant poll for Labour, if they are reliant on Restore trying to get over the line. It's like the frog relying on the scorpion. Mind you, the Tories being on 2% is absolutely pathetic. Nice one Kemi.
The last thing burnham wants or needs now is a poll showing him miles ahead, giving Green and LD voters permission to back their first preference and many of his own voters permission to stay in bed.
Good morning, everyone. F1 wibble will be up either mid-morning or late morning (trying to do some work today so I can avoid it tomorrow, until the Labour VPN ban comes in and I 'can avoid' work altogether...).
Today’s Rawnsley, as it is already warming up here for the Giro D’Italia later:
The case against Mr Burnham is that he is an opportunistic chameleon who adjusts his identity to the prevailing wind. The case for him is paradoxically much the same. Such is the dire plight of Labour, perhaps what it needs is a fluid pragmatist with a proven capacity for reinvention and salesmanship. Being absent from parliament for nearly a decade would once have been a massive handicap for someone with leadership ambitions; his lack of any recent ministerial experience is now considered helpful. He is the screen on which everyone can project their dream of what the ideal Labour government would be.
In a bid to reassure the markets, he now declares he’d stick to Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules. He’s also committed to the manifesto promise not to raise the main rates of income tax, national insurance and VAT. So, on core issues of economic management, a Burnham government doesn’t sound like a change from the Starmer one. It sounds pretty much the same.
He would disrupt the status quo if he delivered on his promise to give much more devolution of power to localities. He would also be the first Labour leader since 1945 to unequivocally advocate the replacement of the first-past-the-post electoral system with proportional representation.
Mr Burnham is a lot more popular than the man he seeks to supplant, but he’d inherit the same daunting dilemmas. What do we do about the unsustainable pensioners’ triple-lock? How do we reform welfare? Where do we find more resources for defence? Is there an affordable fix for social care? And for youth unemployment? How do you make the economy more productive? Is it possible to raise more from tax without suffocating growth? The times demand a leader prepared to grapple with tough trade-offs and sell difficult-to-swallow choices to both party and electorate.
As mayor, he’s been known to backtrack when he’s encountered opposition. Talking to people, perhaps the most troubling observation about Andy Burnham is that he “likes to be liked”. If he does get to be prime minister, and if he is going to be any good at making decisions, he will have to cope with being hated.
Today’s Rawnsley, as it is already warming up here for the Giro D’Italia later:
The case against Mr Burnham is that he is an opportunistic chameleon who adjusts his identity to the prevailing wind. The case for him is paradoxically much the same. Such is the dire plight of Labour, perhaps what it needs is a fluid pragmatist with a proven capacity for reinvention and salesmanship. Being absent from parliament for nearly a decade would once have been a massive handicap for someone with leadership ambitions; his lack of any recent ministerial experience is now considered helpful. He is the screen on which everyone can project their dream of what the ideal Labour government would be.
In a bid to reassure the markets, he now declares he’d stick to Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules. He’s also committed to the manifesto promise not to raise the main rates of income tax, national insurance and VAT. So, on core issues of economic management, a Burnham government doesn’t sound like a change from the Starmer one. It sounds pretty much the same.
He would disrupt the status quo if he delivered on his promise to give much more devolution of power to localities. He would also be the first Labour leader since 1945 to unequivocally advocate the replacement of the first-past-the-post electoral system with proportional representation.
Mr Burnham is a lot more popular than the man he seeks to supplant, but he’d inherit the same daunting dilemmas. What do we do about the unsustainable pensioners’ triple-lock? How do we reform welfare? Where do we find more resources for defence? Is there an affordable fix for social care? And for youth unemployment? How do you make the economy more productive? Is it possible to raise more from tax without suffocating growth? The times demand a leader prepared to grapple with tough trade-offs and sell difficult-to-swallow choices to both party and electorate.
As mayor, he’s been known to backtrack when he’s encountered opposition. Talking to people, perhaps the most troubling observation about Andy Burnham is that he “likes to be liked”. If he does get to be prime minister, and if he is going to be any good at making decisions, he will have to cope with being hated.
I'm reminded of Francis Urquhart's comment on spaniels. On the other hand, is it worse than Starmer, who seems content to be loathed?
Without boring everyone with the technicalities, cancelling Triple Lock simply embeds pensioner poverty ( based on the current definition of poverty).
Perhaps the time has come to accept we cannot afford pensioners and they will have to accept they didn’t contribute enough during their working years to justify the amount they want to take out now.
I do actually know one person in real life who is a Restore fan. They reckon they will be outpolling Reform by the end of the summer, which is certainly a confident prediction to make.
The one Restore voter I know (indirectly) is my friend’s Mum.
She’s in her 60s and voted Remain/never voted for a Farage party.
Her kids say she’s been utterly radicalised by social media.
Every day she sends them a link to something that is demonstrably bollocks.
She genuinely believes a majority of people in the UK are Muslims/migrants.
Many Restore and Reform voters are rational but wrong. If everything they believed to be true was actually true, then their vote might be a sensible response. But most of what they believe is total nonsense, fed to them by social media.
I do actually know one person in real life who is a Restore fan. They reckon they will be outpolling Reform by the end of the summer, which is certainly a confident prediction to make.
The one Restore voter I know (indirectly) is my friend’s Mum.
She’s in her 60s and voted Remain/never voted for a Farage party.
Her kids say she’s been utterly radicalised by social media.
Every day she sends them a link to something that is demonstrably bollocks.
She genuinely believes a majority of people in the UK are Muslims/migrants.
Many Restore and Reform voters are rational but wrong. If everything they believed to be true was actually true, then their vote might be a sensible response. But most of what they believe is total nonsense, fed to them by social media.
They could always try the BBC where they are reporting a potential attack on Ukraine by Russia using missiles that travel at 10 times the speed of light. Facts from the BBC as usual
Without boring everyone with the technicalities, cancelling Triple Lock simply embeds pensioner poverty ( based on the current definition of poverty).
Perhaps the time has come to accept we cannot afford pensioners and they will have to accept they didn’t contribute enough during their working years to justify the amount they want to take out now.
How much they did or didn’t contribute is entirely irrelevant, since all that money was spent, long ago. What matters is the amounts that working people (and other taxpayers, to the extent that they are) are contributing now. And the way it is spent - locking in inexorably rising payments to millions of better off people is not a sensible way to be tackling the poverty of a minority.
I do actually know one person in real life who is a Restore fan. They reckon they will be outpolling Reform by the end of the summer, which is certainly a confident prediction to make.
The one Restore voter I know (indirectly) is my friend’s Mum.
She’s in her 60s and voted Remain/never voted for a Farage party.
Her kids say she’s been utterly radicalised by social media.
Every day she sends them a link to something that is demonstrably bollocks.
She genuinely believes a majority of people in the UK are Muslims/migrants.
Many Restore and Reform voters are rational but wrong. If everything they believed to be true was actually true, then their vote might be a sensible response. But most of what they believe is total nonsense, fed to them by social media.
They could always try the BBC where they are reporting a potential attack on Ukraine by Russia using missiles that travel at 10 times the speed of light. Facts from the BBC as usual
Does that error on missile speed really compare to the deluge of AI slop and falsehoods about Muslims/immigrants that exists on Facebook and X?
I find comments like this a bit strange to be honest.
Given only a few days ago you missed all of Restore remigration policies that would have deported the likes of Sunil I think that says more about you than the original comment.
I found the comment strange. Firstly, there aren't even that many of them, and secondly, on closer inspection they aren't 100% White.
It's that weird obsession where if there are too many white people in one place, with insufficient diversity ratios, it is seen as suspect and a problem and worthy of comment.
So, yes, I found the comment a bit strange too. And that has nothing to do with Restore or their remigration policies as reported, which I wouldn't support and I doubt Andy would either.
Without boring everyone with the technicalities, cancelling Triple Lock simply embeds pensioner poverty ( based on the current definition of poverty).
Perhaps the time has come to accept we cannot afford pensioners and they will have to accept they didn’t contribute enough during their working years to justify the amount they want to take out now.
How much they did or didn’t contribute is entirely irrelevant, since all that money was spent, long ago. What matters is the amounts that working people (and other taxpayers, to the extent that they are) are contributing now. And the way it is spent - locking in inexorably rising payments to millions of better off people is not a sensible way to be tackling the poverty of a minority.
It would take generations of complex upheaval to alter the basic structure of providing a universal basic income (which in effect is what the state pension is) to old people. The instrument which works is the tax/NI system, where the lighter regime on old people (like me) helps the better off and doesn't help those who are too poor to pay significant amounts. This should change.
I find comments like this a bit strange to be honest.
Why? Restore Britain are white supremacists. Of course their canvas team are white.
White nationalists, not white supremacists.
Oh, thank goodness!
A distinction without a difference.
There absolutely is a difference.
White nationalists care about being the dominant racial group in their own country.
White supremacists care about being the dominant racial group in every country.
I've not ever heard that distinction. Just that supremacists believe in the, well, supremacy of their race. Whether they are content to do that in one country or expand it to others seems like a matter of individual ambition rather than being distinct from white nationalists - it doesn't seem very likely that a believe in racial dominance and supremacy would stop at the English Channel even if no international invasions were planned.
White nationalism is a type of racial nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity.[2][3][4] Many of its proponents identify with the concept of a white ethnostate.[5]
Nativism is a political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native-born or indigenous people over those of immigrants,[1][2] including opposition to immigration.[3]
Based on those definitions Restore as a party is clearly nativist and many of its members are no doubt white nationalists. But you can argue that England should be for the ethnically English (who happen to be white) without necessarily believing that white people are superior - you just need to believe that the English are a people who deserve a country where their interests are treated as paramount.
What is ethnically English? I can understand the concept of culturally English but the English - myself included - are such a mongrel breed that the idea of a single English ethnicity seems to me to be utterly illogical. I am culturally English and that matters to me. But I would never say that TSE was less English than me, nor Kemi Badenoch, Michael Portillo, David Lammy, Sadiq Khan or anyone else who has grown up here and adheres to our mores and customs.
Is Lenny Henry less English than Jasper Carrott?
Before you start throwing around these concepts of "Englishness" you should try defining what that actually means.
I think you're mixing your drinks.
I agree on the culturally English point, but the other is simply because we don't want to concede there is a competing label that might be a real political risk.
England was 98-99% White up until the end of WWII, with concentrated Irish immigration in several major cities, and a small Jewish community, and even a very small international one, but the vast majority could (probably) trace their ethnicity back to the anglo-saxons or native Britons. So did and does exist.
I think it's entirely counter-productive to deny this because it gives succour to White supremacists who argue their identity is being wiped out.
So, yes, we should accept it exists and we should also accept it's not relevant to English political identity today, which is inclusive.
I do actually know one person in real life who is a Restore fan. They reckon they will be outpolling Reform by the end of the summer, which is certainly a confident prediction to make.
The one Restore voter I know (indirectly) is my friend’s Mum.
She’s in her 60s and voted Remain/never voted for a Farage party.
Her kids say she’s been utterly radicalised by social media.
Every day she sends them a link to something that is demonstrably bollocks.
She genuinely believes a majority of people in the UK are Muslims/migrants.
Many Restore and Reform voters are rational but wrong. If everything they believed to be true was actually true, then their vote might be a sensible response. But most of what they believe is total nonsense, fed to them by social media.
Most frustrating, when they should believe the nonsense being fed to them by your lot instead.
The tea tray had custard creams and bourbon creams, and the ceiling lights have those papier mache type shades that I don't think I've seen since the 1990s.
An official White House responds to Pompeo on the rumoured Iran deal.
Mike Pompeo has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about. He should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals. He’s not read into anything that’s happening, so how would he know. https://x.com/StevenCheung47/status/2058329688490086743
I agree with them.
When they are all going to resign to allow professionals who know what they are talking about take over?
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
Nothing will come of it. Alberta throws its toys out the pram from time to time, and it's usually about tax or the federal government interfering with its oil revenues, so fires a shot across the bows.
you’re hearing it more and more, folks, they’re saying no president has ever lost a war like this, no president has given up more material resources and lives for less than nothing
Without boring everyone with the technicalities, cancelling Triple Lock simply embeds pensioner poverty ( based on the current definition of poverty).
Perhaps the time has come to accept we cannot afford pensioners and they will have to accept they didn’t contribute enough during their working years to justify the amount they want to take out now.
What a diddy, it is not the ones who contributed that are the problem , it is the spongers who never contributed that are getting all the cash the poor sods contributed that is the issue
I find comments like this a bit strange to be honest.
Why? Restore Britain are white supremacists. Of course their canvas team are white.
White nationalists, not white supremacists.
Oh, thank goodness!
A distinction without a difference.
There absolutely is a difference.
White nationalists care about being the dominant racial group in their own country.
White supremacists care about being the dominant racial group in every country.
I've not ever heard that distinction. Just that supremacists believe in the, well, supremacy of their race. Whether they are content to do that in one country or expand it to others seems like a matter of individual ambition rather than being distinct from white nationalists - it doesn't seem very likely that a believe in racial dominance and supremacy would stop at the English Channel even if no international invasions were planned.
White nationalism is a type of racial nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity.[2][3][4] Many of its proponents identify with the concept of a white ethnostate.[5]
Nativism is a political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native-born or indigenous people over those of immigrants,[1][2] including opposition to immigration.[3]
Based on those definitions Restore as a party is clearly nativist and many of its members are no doubt white nationalists. But you can argue that England should be for the ethnically English (who happen to be white) without necessarily believing that white people are superior - you just need to believe that the English are a people who deserve a country where their interests are treated as paramount.
What is ethnically English? I can understand the concept of culturally English but the English - myself included - are such a mongrel breed that the idea of a single English ethnicity seems to me to be utterly illogical. I am culturally English and that matters to me. But I would never say that TSE was less English than me, nor Kemi Badenoch, Michael Portillo, David Lammy, Sadiq Khan or anyone else who has grown up here and adheres to our mores and customs.
Is Lenny Henry less English than Jasper Carrott?
Before you start throwing around these concepts of "Englishness" you should try defining what that actually means.
I think you're mixing your drinks.
I agree on the culturally English point, but the other is simply because we don't want to concede there is a competing label that might be a real political risk.
England was 98-99% White up until the end of WWII, with concentrated Irish immigration in several major cities, and a small Jewish community, and even a very small international one, but the vast majority could (probably) trace their ethnicity back to the anglo-saxons or native Britons. So did and does exist.
I think it's entirely counter-productive to deny this because it gives succour to White supremacists who argue their identity is being wiped out.
So, yes, we should accept it exists and we should also accept it's not relevant to English political identity today, which is inclusive.
Up until the start of WWII, yes. But by the end of WWII, there had already been significant demographic change with so many refugees, Allied soldiers, etc. One source, for example, estimates there were 8000 Black people in the UK at the start of the war, but 130,000 by D-Day. Obviously most of those were soldiers who would be gone after the war, but it changed the UK experience, and ~2000 mixed heritage war babies remained. Likewise, 20,000 Chinese seamen came over during the War, with most then deported in 1945-6, but ~1000 mixed heritage babies were born. ~170,000 Poles came over to the UK during the war, and maybe another 80,000 immediately after the war, and they were allowed to stay.
I do actually know one person in real life who is a Restore fan. They reckon they will be outpolling Reform by the end of the summer, which is certainly a confident prediction to make.
The one Restore voter I know (indirectly) is my friend’s Mum.
She’s in her 60s and voted Remain/never voted for a Farage party.
Her kids say she’s been utterly radicalised by social media.
Every day she sends them a link to something that is demonstrably bollocks.
She genuinely believes a majority of people in the UK are Muslims/migrants.
What is your friend's mum wrong about? That a majority are immigrants, or is she wrong to go from there to supporting Restore?
You seem to be in danger of saying it's the former.
Trouble is, the population is not homogeneous; people are not distributed equally round Britain. In some parts of the country, there are Muslim or immigrant majorities (accepting your combining these overlapping categories).
Are you saying your friend's mum would be right to support Restore if she lives in one of these places? We might need to rescind your membership of Hope Not Hate for this double plus wrongthink.
I do actually know one person in real life who is a Restore fan. They reckon they will be outpolling Reform by the end of the summer, which is certainly a confident prediction to make.
The one Restore voter I know (indirectly) is my friend’s Mum.
She’s in her 60s and voted Remain/never voted for a Farage party.
Her kids say she’s been utterly radicalised by social media.
Every day she sends them a link to something that is demonstrably bollocks.
She genuinely believes a majority of people in the UK are Muslims/migrants.
Many Restore and Reform voters are rational but wrong. If everything they believed to be true was actually true, then their vote might be a sensible response. But most of what they believe is total nonsense, fed to them by social media.
Most frustrating, when they should believe the nonsense being fed to them by your lot instead.
What nonsense is that? Are you back on claiming climate change is a massive hoax? Just as we’re expected to break records for the hottest ever day in May…
Without boring everyone with the technicalities, cancelling Triple Lock simply embeds pensioner poverty ( based on the current definition of poverty).
Perhaps the time has come to accept we cannot afford pensioners and they will have to accept they didn’t contribute enough during their working years to justify the amount they want to take out now.
How much they did or didn’t contribute is entirely irrelevant, since all that money was spent, long ago. What matters is the amounts that working people (and other taxpayers, to the extent that they are) are contributing now. And the way it is spent - locking in inexorably rising payments to millions of better off people is not a sensible way to be tackling the poverty of a minority.
Paying more in benefits than working people get is the big issue, we have far too many spongers living off the state and paying no tax yet people working with less take home money get no help and are taxed more to give the spongers even more free money. What kind of idiot keeps this system and encourages more and more to claim for any and every imagined illness.
I do actually know one person in real life who is a Restore fan. They reckon they will be outpolling Reform by the end of the summer, which is certainly a confident prediction to make.
The one Restore voter I know (indirectly) is my friend’s Mum.
She’s in her 60s and voted Remain/never voted for a Farage party.
Her kids say she’s been utterly radicalised by social media.
Every day she sends them a link to something that is demonstrably bollocks.
She genuinely believes a majority of people in the UK are Muslims/migrants.
Many Restore and Reform voters are rational but wrong. If everything they believed to be true was actually true, then their vote might be a sensible response. But most of what they believe is total nonsense, fed to them by social media.
Most frustrating, when they should believe the nonsense being fed to them by your lot instead.
I’ll be honest, I don’t know any Reform voters. But to think their lives will be better if Farage and his blackshirts take power is a massive fallacy.
Kate Ferguson @kateferguson4 · 1h EXCL: Andy Burnham rents out a £480,000 London flat which he bought partly using taxpayers’ cash – leaving him quids in.
His second home has doubled in value since he bought it 20 years ago, according to market experts.
A £480,00 flat in London! What is her point? That Burnham is such a peasant he can only afford to live in a cupboard whilst in London.
He used public money to rent a property while renting out this one - essentially a free option on property prices at the expense of the taxpayer
It’s a mindset thing
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty ordinary politician who sees nothing wrong with exploiting expenses for a finer life. Next thing he will be accepting free meals biked to Downing Street and designer glasses and from there it's a hop, skip and a jump to £5 million gifts from crypto billionaires and the FIFA prize for not being Keir Starmer.
I do actually know one person in real life who is a Restore fan. They reckon they will be outpolling Reform by the end of the summer, which is certainly a confident prediction to make.
The one Restore voter I know (indirectly) is my friend’s Mum.
She’s in her 60s and voted Remain/never voted for a Farage party.
Her kids say she’s been utterly radicalised by social media.
Every day she sends them a link to something that is demonstrably bollocks.
She genuinely believes a majority of people in the UK are Muslims/migrants.
Many Restore and Reform voters are rational but wrong. If everything they believed to be true was actually true, then their vote might be a sensible response. But most of what they believe is total nonsense, fed to them by social media.
Most frustrating, when they should believe the nonsense being fed to them by your lot instead.
What nonsense is that? Are you back on claiming climate change is a massive hoax? Just as we’re expected to break records for the hottest ever day in May…
Are there still idiots on the forum who think anthropogenic forcing of the climate is a hoax! Seriously? Who are these ignorant fools?
A newly elected Reform UK councillor in Barnsley has been pictured with what appears to be a swastika tattoo visible on his arm, in a series of publicly accessible Facebook photographs spanning almost a decade.
Andy Arnold’s wife and fellow Reform UK councillor, Theresa, has claimed the tattoo is a ‘misunderstood’ buddhist peace symbol.
I do actually know one person in real life who is a Restore fan. They reckon they will be outpolling Reform by the end of the summer, which is certainly a confident prediction to make.
The one Restore voter I know (indirectly) is my friend’s Mum.
She’s in her 60s and voted Remain/never voted for a Farage party.
Her kids say she’s been utterly radicalised by social media.
Every day she sends them a link to something that is demonstrably bollocks.
She genuinely believes a majority of people in the UK are Muslims/migrants.
Many Restore and Reform voters are rational but wrong. If everything they believed to be true was actually true, then their vote might be a sensible response. But most of what they believe is total nonsense, fed to them by social media.
Most frustrating, when they should believe the nonsense being fed to them by your lot instead.
What nonsense is that? Are you back on claiming climate change is a massive hoax? Just as we’re expected to break records for the hottest ever day in May…
Are there still idiots on the forum who think anthropogenic forcing of the climate is a hoax! Seriously? Who are these ignorant fools?
A newly elected Reform UK councillor in Barnsley has been pictured with what appears to be a swastika tattoo visible on his arm, in a series of publicly accessible Facebook photographs spanning almost a decade.
Andy Arnold’s wife and fellow Reform UK councillor, Theresa, has claimed the tattoo is a ‘misunderstood’ buddhist peace symbol.
No it isn't. That's what it means in Hinduism. In Buddhism it means the one who follows with patience the many false paths of the Buddha before achieving Bodhai.
you’re hearing it more and more, folks, they’re saying no president has ever lost a war like this, no president has given up more material resources and lives for less than nothing
The tea tray had custard creams and bourbon creams, and the ceiling lights have those papier mache type shades that I don't think I've seen since the 1990s.
The US did manage to kill Iran's leader, a historically cautious decision-maker with a healthy respect for US military power, and replace him with a collective leadership dominated by military figures who believe the most effective means of ensuring Iran's defense is taking the global economy hostage while turning the Persian Gulf into a live fire zone.
Without boring everyone with the technicalities, cancelling Triple Lock simply embeds pensioner poverty ( based on the current definition of poverty).
Perhaps the time has come to accept we cannot afford pensioners and they will have to accept they didn’t contribute enough during their working years to justify the amount they want to take out now.
How much they did or didn’t contribute is entirely irrelevant, since all that money was spent, long ago. What matters is the amounts that working people (and other taxpayers, to the extent that they are) are contributing now. And the way it is spent - locking in inexorably rising payments to millions of better off people is not a sensible way to be tackling the poverty of a minority.
On whom was the money spent or from whom was sufficient money not collected?
It’s easy to blame governments for an inability to provide for your own future deciding to accept the delusion rather than facing facts
It's a perceptive clip. Most of the links don't seem to be working today. Whether it's censorship or good taste is difficult to know but anything with 'Netanyahu' in the clip seems to disappear. Maybe 'Lawyers for Israel' are trying to justify their charges?
I find comments like this a bit strange to be honest.
Why? Restore Britain are white supremacists. Of course their canvas team are white.
White nationalists, not white supremacists.
Oh, thank goodness!
A distinction without a difference.
There absolutely is a difference.
White nationalists care about being the dominant racial group in their own country.
White supremacists care about being the dominant racial group in every country.
I've not ever heard that distinction. Just that supremacists believe in the, well, supremacy of their race. Whether they are content to do that in one country or expand it to others seems like a matter of individual ambition rather than being distinct from white nationalists - it doesn't seem very likely that a believe in racial dominance and supremacy would stop at the English Channel even if no international invasions were planned.
White nationalism is a type of racial nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity.[2][3][4] Many of its proponents identify with the concept of a white ethnostate.[5]
Nativism is a political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native-born or indigenous people over those of immigrants,[1][2] including opposition to immigration.[3]
Based on those definitions Restore as a party is clearly nativist and many of its members are no doubt white nationalists. But you can argue that England should be for the ethnically English (who happen to be white) without necessarily believing that white people are superior - you just need to believe that the English are a people who deserve a country where their interests are treated as paramount.
What is ethnically English? I can understand the concept of culturally English but the English - myself included - are such a mongrel breed that the idea of a single English ethnicity seems to me to be utterly illogical. I am culturally English and that matters to me. But I would never say that TSE was less English than me, nor Kemi Badenoch, Michael Portillo, David Lammy, Sadiq Khan or anyone else who has grown up here and adheres to our mores and customs.
Is Lenny Henry less English than Jasper Carrott?
Before you start throwing around these concepts of "Englishness" you should try defining what that actually means.
I think you're mixing your drinks.
I agree on the culturally English point, but the other is simply because we don't want to concede there is a competing label that might be a real political risk.
England was 98-99% White up until the end of WWII, with concentrated Irish immigration in several major cities, and a small Jewish community, and even a very small international one, but the vast majority could (probably) trace their ethnicity back to the anglo-saxons or native Britons. So did and does exist.
I think it's entirely counter-productive to deny this because it gives succour to White supremacists who argue their identity is being wiped out.
So, yes, we should accept it exists and we should also accept it's not relevant to English political identity today, which is inclusive.
Yes that's right.
Every ethnicity/nation/race is a mix if you look back far enough, or make enough fuss about inevitable exceptions such as a few African sailors in early modern London, or a couple of larger waves of political refugees such as the Huguenots in the 17th century and the East European Jews from around 1880.
But we were pretty homogeneous until the unplanned and uncontrolled wave of non-white immigration started under the Attlee government, certainly by comparison with what has happened since.
The public, and especially the white working class, whose areas were transformed, was never consulted about the huge demographic change that occurred. According to Macmillan's diary, in 1955, Churchill wanted to run on the slogan "Keep England White" but dropped the idea, and in any case handed over to Eden before the election that year.
Given that, they have taken the transformation of much of urban Britain with remarkable forbearance and tolerance.
you’re hearing it more and more, folks, they’re saying no president has ever lost a war like this, no president has given up more material resources and lives for less than nothing
I linked to a clip of Tucker Carlson appearing on Israeli TV which I found fascinating. The israeli interviewer couldn't understand why killing thousands of Gazan children wasn't justified. I know Carlson has metamorphosed in the last year or so but in his new incarnation there are few interviewers better at their craft than he is.
It's a perceptive clip. Most of the links don't seem to be working today. Whether it's censorship or good taste is difficult to know but anything with 'Netanyahu' in the clip seems to disappear. Maybe 'Lawyers for Israel' are trying to justify their charges?
Most of the Bluesky links need you to create (and log into) your own Bluesky account.
A newly elected Reform UK councillor in Barnsley has been pictured with what appears to be a swastika tattoo visible on his arm, in a series of publicly accessible Facebook photographs spanning almost a decade.
Andy Arnold’s wife and fellow Reform UK councillor, Theresa, has claimed the tattoo is a ‘misunderstood’ buddhist peace symbol.
No it isn't. That's what it means in Hinduism. In Buddhism it means the one who follows with patience the many false paths of the Buddha before achieving Bodhai.
He'd be better off claiming that it was a tribute to Upminster Bridge tube station;
The US did manage to kill Iran's leader, a historically cautious decision-maker with a healthy respect for US military power, and replace him with a collective leadership dominated by military figures who believe the most effective means of ensuring Iran's defense is taking the global economy hostage while turning the Persian Gulf into a live fire zone.
Before the missiles flew, it did not seem to have occurred to Iran to monetise their control of the Strait of Hormuz. Even if peace breaks out, that will remain.
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
Nothing will come of it. Alberta throws its toys out the pram from time to time, and it's usually about tax or the federal government interfering with its oil revenues, so fires a shot across the bows.
I linked to a clip of Tucker Carlson appearing on Israeli TV which I found fascinating. The israeli interviewer couldn't understand why killing thousands of Gazan children wasn't justified. I know Carlson has metamorphosed in the last year or so but in his new incarnation there are few interviewers better at their craft than he is.
I haven't quite worked out what Carlson's game is. All you say is correct but why? Is his hostility to Israel and Netanyahu because he discovered his heart or because he is simply an Anti-Semite?
It’s hard to overstate how deeply Netanyahu views this moment as a possible personal and political defeat. A U.S.–Iran agreement under Trump would be a major blow to him mainly diplomatically, but above all politically.
For years, Netanyahu built his political identity around being “Mr. Iran,” the leader who insisted that only pressure, deterrence, and force could stop the Iranian regime. And now, after multiple rounds of operational successes but one resounding strategic failure, and after finally succeeding in drawing the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, he may be forced to accept an agreement that not only legitimizes the very regime he sought to weaken, but also exposes the collapse of his long-standing Iran doctrine.
His approach was based on the belief that more pressure, more military power, and tighter coordination between Israel and the United States would eventually either force Iran into submission or destabilize the regime itself. Instead, the result has been a more radicalized, more resilient, and more dangerous Iran, one that even Washington now hesitates to confront militarily again.
It's a perceptive clip. Most of the links don't seem to be working today. Whether it's censorship or good taste is difficult to know but anything with 'Netanyahu' in the clip seems to disappear. Maybe 'Lawyers for Israel' are trying to justify their charges?
Most of the Bluesky links need you to create (and log into) your own Bluesky account.
That's a limitation the user has to turn on themselves, by default your stuff is visible on the web without a login. Generally when someone turns that on it's a sign their stuff won't be worth looking at when you get there.
It’s hard to overstate how deeply Netanyahu views this moment as a possible personal and political defeat. A U.S.–Iran agreement under Trump would be a major blow to him mainly diplomatically, but above all politically.
For years, Netanyahu built his political identity around being “Mr. Iran,” the leader who insisted that only pressure, deterrence, and force could stop the Iranian regime. And now, after multiple rounds of operational successes but one resounding strategic failure, and after finally succeeding in drawing the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, he may be forced to accept an agreement that not only legitimizes the very regime he sought to weaken, but also exposes the collapse of his long-standing Iran doctrine.
His approach was based on the belief that more pressure, more military power, and tighter coordination between Israel and the United States would eventually either force Iran into submission or destabilize the regime itself. Instead, the result has been a more radicalized, more resilient, and more dangerous Iran, one that even Washington now hesitates to confront militarily again.
It’s hard to overstate how deeply Netanyahu views this moment as a possible personal and political defeat. A U.S.–Iran agreement under Trump would be a major blow to him mainly diplomatically, but above all politically.
For years, Netanyahu built his political identity around being “Mr. Iran,” the leader who insisted that only pressure, deterrence, and force could stop the Iranian regime. And now, after multiple rounds of operational successes but one resounding strategic failure, and after finally succeeding in drawing the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, he may be forced to accept an agreement that not only legitimizes the very regime he sought to weaken, but also exposes the collapse of his long-standing Iran doctrine.
His approach was based on the belief that more pressure, more military power, and tighter coordination between Israel and the United States would eventually either force Iran into submission or destabilize the regime itself. Instead, the result has been a more radicalized, more resilient, and more dangerous Iran, one that even Washington now hesitates to confront militarily again.
It’s hard to overstate how deeply Netanyahu views this moment as a possible personal and political defeat. A U.S.–Iran agreement under Trump would be a major blow to him mainly diplomatically, but above all politically.
For years, Netanyahu built his political identity around being “Mr. Iran,” the leader who insisted that only pressure, deterrence, and force could stop the Iranian regime. And now, after multiple rounds of operational successes but one resounding strategic failure, and after finally succeeding in drawing the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, he may be forced to accept an agreement that not only legitimizes the very regime he sought to weaken, but also exposes the collapse of his long-standing Iran doctrine.
His approach was based on the belief that more pressure, more military power, and tighter coordination between Israel and the United States would eventually either force Iran into submission or destabilize the regime itself. Instead, the result has been a more radicalized, more resilient, and more dangerous Iran, one that even Washington now hesitates to confront militarily again.
An official White House responds to Pompeo on the rumoured Iran deal.
Mike Pompeo has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about. He should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals. He’s not read into anything that’s happening, so how would he know. https://x.com/StevenCheung47/status/2058329688490086743
I agree with them.
When they are all going to resign to allow professionals who know what they are talking about take over?
Pompeo, like Cruz and Graham, want more war and to bomb Iran into submission.
This deal really is the least worse option for Trump.
I find comments like this a bit strange to be honest.
Why? Restore Britain are white supremacists. Of course their canvas team are white.
White nationalists, not white supremacists.
Oh, thank goodness!
A distinction without a difference.
There absolutely is a difference.
White nationalists care about being the dominant racial group in their own country.
White supremacists care about being the dominant racial group in every country.
I've not ever heard that distinction. Just that supremacists believe in the, well, supremacy of their race. Whether they are content to do that in one country or expand it to others seems like a matter of individual ambition rather than being distinct from white nationalists - it doesn't seem very likely that a believe in racial dominance and supremacy would stop at the English Channel even if no international invasions were planned.
White nationalism is a type of racial nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity.[2][3][4] Many of its proponents identify with the concept of a white ethnostate.[5]
Nativism is a political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native-born or indigenous people over those of immigrants,[1][2] including opposition to immigration.[3]
Based on those definitions Restore as a party is clearly nativist and many of its members are no doubt white nationalists. But you can argue that England should be for the ethnically English (who happen to be white) without necessarily believing that white people are superior - you just need to believe that the English are a people who deserve a country where their interests are treated as paramount.
What is ethnically English? I can understand the concept of culturally English but the English - myself included - are such a mongrel breed that the idea of a single English ethnicity seems to me to be utterly illogical. I am culturally English and that matters to me. But I would never say that TSE was less English than me, nor Kemi Badenoch, Michael Portillo, David Lammy, Sadiq Khan or anyone else who has grown up here and adheres to our mores and customs.
Is Lenny Henry less English than Jasper Carrott?
Before you start throwing around these concepts of "Englishness" you should try defining what that actually means.
I think you're mixing your drinks.
I agree on the culturally English point, but the other is simply because we don't want to concede there is a competing label that might be a real political risk.
England was 98-99% White up until the end of WWII, with concentrated Irish immigration in several major cities, and a small Jewish community, and even a very small international one, but the vast majority could (probably) trace their ethnicity back to the anglo-saxons or native Britons. So did and does exist.
I think it's entirely counter-productive to deny this because it gives succour to White supremacists who argue their identity is being wiped out.
So, yes, we should accept it exists and we should also accept it's not relevant to English political identity today, which is inclusive.
Up until the start of WWII, yes. But by the end of WWII, there had already been significant demographic change with so many refugees, Allied soldiers, etc. One source, for example, estimates there were 8000 Black people in the UK at the start of the war, but 130,000 by D-Day. Obviously most of those were soldiers who would be gone after the war, but it changed the UK experience, and ~2000 mixed heritage war babies remained. Likewise, 20,000 Chinese seamen came over during the War, with most then deported in 1945-6, but ~1000 mixed heritage babies were born. ~170,000 Poles came over to the UK during the war, and maybe another 80,000 immediately after the war, and they were allowed to stay.
Simpler explanation
The global upheaval of WW1, financial crash and then WW2 slowed the globe down
The technical advances in WW2 saw a massive knock on in travel, specifically air travel.
By the mid 50s as rationing eased and ended the implications of British Colonialism began to be understood.
We took over huge tranches of the globe enforced slavery and other rules.
It only dawned on many that this entitled them to come to the Country that had ruled them.
Accessible travel for all was the key to the lock that opened the doors.
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
Nothing will come of it. Alberta throws its toys out the pram from time to time, and it's usually about tax or the federal government interfering with its oil revenues, so fires a shot across the bows.
Ah, Scotland
(runs away and hides)
The UK government won’t allow an independence referendum there now anymore than Spain will Catalonia. The Canadian government is getting into dangerous territory allowing Alberta an independence referendum. It may have scraped a defeat of the last Quebec independence referendum but it is risky allowing Alberta one too
There are grilled kipper fillets and poached haddock on the breakfast menu, and everyone's names are handwritten on the tables with their room number.
I must admit, I'm quite enjoying this.
Do the premises have a pervasive fishy pong for that full retro experience? Those little absorbent bits of carpet round the lav can also contribute to this.
I linked to a clip of Tucker Carlson appearing on Israeli TV which I found fascinating. The israeli interviewer couldn't understand why killing thousands of Gazan children wasn't justified. I know Carlson has metamorphosed in the last year or so but in his new incarnation there are few interviewers better at their craft than he is.
I haven't quite worked out what Carlson's game is. All you say is correct but why? Is his hostility to Israel and Netanyahu because he discovered his heart or because he is simply an Anti-Semite?
The white nationalists who have turned against Trump think he has sold out to the Jews. Tucker Carlson believes in The Great Replacement Theory, and gave a platform to the holocaust denier, Darryl Cooper, on his podcast.
It goes without saying that Carlson is entirely supportive of Putin.
I find comments like this a bit strange to be honest.
Why? Restore Britain are white supremacists. Of course their canvas team are white.
White nationalists, not white supremacists.
Oh, thank goodness!
A distinction without a difference.
There absolutely is a difference.
White nationalists care about being the dominant racial group in their own country.
White supremacists care about being the dominant racial group in every country.
I've not ever heard that distinction. Just that supremacists believe in the, well, supremacy of their race. Whether they are content to do that in one country or expand it to others seems like a matter of individual ambition rather than being distinct from white nationalists - it doesn't seem very likely that a believe in racial dominance and supremacy would stop at the English Channel even if no international invasions were planned.
White nationalism is a type of racial nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity.[2][3][4] Many of its proponents identify with the concept of a white ethnostate.[5]
Nativism is a political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native-born or indigenous people over those of immigrants,[1][2] including opposition to immigration.[3]
Based on those definitions Restore as a party is clearly nativist and many of its members are no doubt white nationalists. But you can argue that England should be for the ethnically English (who happen to be white) without necessarily believing that white people are superior - you just need to believe that the English are a people who deserve a country where their interests are treated as paramount.
What is ethnically English? I can understand the concept of culturally English but the English - myself included - are such a mongrel breed that the idea of a single English ethnicity seems to me to be utterly illogical. I am culturally English and that matters to me. But I would never say that TSE was less English than me, nor Kemi Badenoch, Michael Portillo, David Lammy, Sadiq Khan or anyone else who has grown up here and adheres to our mores and customs.
Is Lenny Henry less English than Jasper Carrott?
Before you start throwing around these concepts of "Englishness" you should try defining what that actually means.
I think you're mixing your drinks.
I agree on the culturally English point, but the other is simply because we don't want to concede there is a competing label that might be a real political risk.
England was 98-99% White up until the end of WWII, with concentrated Irish immigration in several major cities, and a small Jewish community, and even a very small international one, but the vast majority could (probably) trace their ethnicity back to the anglo-saxons or native Britons. So did and does exist.
I think it's entirely counter-productive to deny this because it gives succour to White supremacists who argue their identity is being wiped out.
So, yes, we should accept it exists and we should also accept it's not relevant to English political identity today, which is inclusive.
Yes that's right.
Every ethnicity/nation/race is a mix if you look back far enough, or make enough fuss about inevitable exceptions such as a few African sailors in early modern London, or a couple of larger waves of political refugees such as the Huguenots in the 17th century and the East European Jews from around 1880.
But we were pretty homogeneous until the unplanned and uncontrolled wave of non-white immigration started under the Attlee government, certainly by comparison with what has happened since.
The public, and especially the white working class, whose areas were transformed, was never consulted about the huge demographic change that occurred. According to Macmillan's diary, in 1955, Churchill wanted to run on the slogan "Keep England White" but dropped the idea, and in any case handed over to Eden before the election that year.
Given that, they have taken the transformation of much of urban Britain with remarkable forbearance and tolerance.
The white working class have had to show far more forbearance to deindustrialisation and the big increases in wealth inequality since the '50s. The idea that immigration is some foundational sin in the period is, at best, a distraction.
Got to be honest... this isn't a brilliant poll for Labour, if they are reliant on Restore trying to get over the line. It's like the frog relying on the scorpion. Mind you, the Tories being on 2% is absolutely pathetic. Nice one Kemi.
Makerfield is only the 29th Reform target seat, Labour could lose Makerfield and still have an overall majority. So if Reform fail to win it, even due to Restore, that would be a disaster for Farage.
Makerfield has never been won by the Conservatives so there won’t be players there anyway
I linked to a clip of Tucker Carlson appearing on Israeli TV which I found fascinating. The israeli interviewer couldn't understand why killing thousands of Gazan children wasn't justified. I know Carlson has metamorphosed in the last year or so but in his new incarnation there are few interviewers better at their craft than he is.
I haven't quite worked out what Carlson's game is. All you say is correct but why? Is his hostility to Israel and Netanyahu because he discovered his heart or because he is simply an Anti-Semite?
There are now five or six who have changed their position radically over the last year. I don't think it was a calculation but a lack of understanding. Israel have always been the good guys and the right wing commentators just went along with it. Then came Gaza and they took the trouble to do some investigation and they were shocked as many others who who followed the same path were and the deeper they dug the worse it got.
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
That’s where Cameron went wrong. He should have made it a referendum on whether to hold a referendum.
I think there should always be a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. Also, if a referendum should pass, there should always be a referendum on whether to implement the results of the first referendum.
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
Nothing will come of it. Alberta throws its toys out the pram from time to time, and it's usually about tax or the federal government interfering with its oil revenues, so fires a shot across the bows.
Ah, Scotland
(runs away and hides)
The UK government won’t allow an independence referendum there now anymore than Spain will Catalonia. The Canadian government is getting into dangerous territory allowing Alberta an independence referendum. It may have scraped a defeat of the last Quebec independence referendum but it is risky allowing Alberta one too
The last poll had 67% for remaining with Canada and the spectre of Trump means it’s not really a risk . Leaving Canada to be pushed around by the WH I doubt will help in selling separation .
It’s hard to overstate how deeply Netanyahu views this moment as a possible personal and political defeat. A U.S.–Iran agreement under Trump would be a major blow to him mainly diplomatically, but above all politically.
For years, Netanyahu built his political identity around being “Mr. Iran,” the leader who insisted that only pressure, deterrence, and force could stop the Iranian regime. And now, after multiple rounds of operational successes but one resounding strategic failure, and after finally succeeding in drawing the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, he may be forced to accept an agreement that not only legitimizes the very regime he sought to weaken, but also exposes the collapse of his long-standing Iran doctrine.
His approach was based on the belief that more pressure, more military power, and tighter coordination between Israel and the United States would eventually either force Iran into submission or destabilize the regime itself. Instead, the result has been a more radicalized, more resilient, and more dangerous Iran, one that even Washington now hesitates to confront militarily again.
Totally unrelated earlier this week the NYT, among others, were reporting that Israeli intelligence believed Iran were about to attack the Gulf regions and the US and Israel needed a pre-emptive first strike to deal with it.
Got to be honest... this isn't a brilliant poll for Labour, if they are reliant on Restore trying to get over the line. It's like the frog relying on the scorpion. Mind you, the Tories being on 2% is absolutely pathetic. Nice one Kemi.
Makerfield is only the 29th Reform target seat, Labour could lose Makerfield and still have an overall majority. So if Reform fail to win it, even due to Restore, that would be a disaster for Farage.
Makerfield has never been won by the Conservatives so there won’t be players there anyway
Have the Conservative Party actually given up on around 300 seats.
They never gave up like this before under any leadership.
I find comments like this a bit strange to be honest.
Why? Restore Britain are white supremacists. Of course their canvas team are white.
White nationalists, not white supremacists.
Oh, thank goodness!
A distinction without a difference.
There absolutely is a difference.
White nationalists care about being the dominant racial group in their own country.
White supremacists care about being the dominant racial group in every country.
I've not ever heard that distinction. Just that supremacists believe in the, well, supremacy of their race. Whether they are content to do that in one country or expand it to others seems like a matter of individual ambition rather than being distinct from white nationalists - it doesn't seem very likely that a believe in racial dominance and supremacy would stop at the English Channel even if no international invasions were planned.
White nationalism is a type of racial nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity.[2][3][4] Many of its proponents identify with the concept of a white ethnostate.[5]
Nativism is a political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native-born or indigenous people over those of immigrants,[1][2] including opposition to immigration.[3]
Based on those definitions Restore as a party is clearly nativist and many of its members are no doubt white nationalists. But you can argue that England should be for the ethnically English (who happen to be white) without necessarily believing that white people are superior - you just need to believe that the English are a people who deserve a country where their interests are treated as paramount.
What is ethnically English? I can understand the concept of culturally English but the English - myself included - are such a mongrel breed that the idea of a single English ethnicity seems to me to be utterly illogical. I am culturally English and that matters to me. But I would never say that TSE was less English than me, nor Kemi Badenoch, Michael Portillo, David Lammy, Sadiq Khan or anyone else who has grown up here and adheres to our mores and customs.
Is Lenny Henry less English than Jasper Carrott?
Before you start throwing around these concepts of "Englishness" you should try defining what that actually means.
I think you're mixing your drinks.
I agree on the culturally English point, but the other is simply because we don't want to concede there is a competing label that might be a real political risk.
England was 98-99% White up until the end of WWII, with concentrated Irish immigration in several major cities, and a small Jewish community, and even a very small international one, but the vast majority could (probably) trace their ethnicity back to the anglo-saxons or native Britons. So did and does exist.
I think it's entirely counter-productive to deny this because it gives succour to White supremacists who argue their identity is being wiped out.
So, yes, we should accept it exists and we should also accept it's not relevant to English political identity today, which is inclusive.
Yes that's right.
Every ethnicity/nation/race is a mix if you look back far enough, or make enough fuss about inevitable exceptions such as a few African sailors in early modern London, or a couple of larger waves of political refugees such as the Huguenots in the 17th century and the East European Jews from around 1880.
But we were pretty homogeneous until the unplanned and uncontrolled wave of non-white immigration started under the Attlee government, certainly by comparison with what has happened since.
The public, and especially the white working class, whose areas were transformed, was never consulted about the huge demographic change that occurred. According to Macmillan's diary, in 1955, Churchill wanted to run on the slogan "Keep England White" but dropped the idea, and in any case handed over to Eden before the election that year.
Given that, they have taken the transformation of much of urban Britain with remarkable forbearance and tolerance.
Indeed, yet they raise any objection and then they’re told they are stupid, thick, racists by middle class centrists or the nose ring, pink hair, keffiyeh wearing, they/them brigade.
I linked to a clip of Tucker Carlson appearing on Israeli TV which I found fascinating. The israeli interviewer couldn't understand why killing thousands of Gazan children wasn't justified. I know Carlson has metamorphosed in the last year or so but in his new incarnation there are few interviewers better at their craft than he is.
I haven't quite worked out what Carlson's game is. All you say is correct but why? Is his hostility to Israel and Netanyahu because he discovered his heart or because he is simply an Anti-Semite?
The white nationalists who have turned against Trump think he has sold out to the Jews. Tucker Carlson believes in The Great Replacement Theory, and gave a platform to the holocaust denier, Darryl Cooper, on his podcast.
It goes without saying that Carlson is entirely supportive of Putin.
There was a weird interview with Piers Morgan where he blamed Britain for starting WWII by declaring war on Germany.
Burnham and David Miliband standing for Labour leader, back to 2010 though difficult to see what Miliband offers different to Streeting. Burnham offers a return to an additional rate 50% of income tax as Brown had
Without boring everyone with the technicalities, cancelling Triple Lock simply embeds pensioner poverty ( based on the current definition of poverty).
Perhaps the time has come to accept we cannot afford pensioners and they will have to accept they didn’t contribute enough during their working years to justify the amount they want to take out now.
How much they did or didn’t contribute is entirely irrelevant, since all that money was spent, long ago. What matters is the amounts that working people (and other taxpayers, to the extent that they are) are contributing now. And the way it is spent - locking in inexorably rising payments to millions of better off people is not a sensible way to be tackling the poverty of a minority.
On whom was the money spent or from whom was sufficient money not collected?
It’s easy to blame governments for an inability to provide for your own future deciding to accept the delusion rather than facing facts
We are due, possibly as soon as next week, the initial findings of the Morrissey review into the State Pension age which then goes on to the next stage.
Although life expectancy is not really going up pulling forward retirement age, currently we start moving to 68 in 2044 seems inevitable.
Will be interesting to see if they extend the age at which you can access your SIPP. Currently 57.
There are grilled kipper fillets and poached haddock on the breakfast menu, and everyone's names are handwritten on the tables with their room number.
I must admit, I'm quite enjoying this.
Do the premises have a pervasive fishy pong for that full retro experience? Those little absorbent bits of carpet round the lav can also contribute to this.
I could easily see that, but this place was definitely clean.
I'm now on Sandown beach, bright yellow sands, and the weather is stunning, as are the views to the cliffs, but there are perhaps 15-20 people here in total.
Why does everyone crowd out Brighton and Bournemouth when they could come here instead?
Burnham and David Miliband standing for Labour leader, back to 2010 though difficult to see what Miliband offers different to Streeting. Burnham offers a return to an additional rate 50% of income tax as Brown had
They just need to find seats for David Miliband and Ed Balls and they could rerun the 2010 contest.
Got to be honest... this isn't a brilliant poll for Labour, if they are reliant on Restore trying to get over the line. It's like the frog relying on the scorpion. Mind you, the Tories being on 2% is absolutely pathetic. Nice one Kemi.
Makerfield is only the 29th Reform target seat, Labour could lose Makerfield and still have an overall majority. So if Reform fail to win it, even due to Restore, that would be a disaster for Farage.
Makerfield has never been won by the Conservatives so there won’t be players there anyway
Have the Conservative Party actually given up on around 300 seats.
They never gave up like this before under any leadership.
It's lazy It lacks vision It stinks of arrogance
Given even Boris and Thatcher failed to win Makerfield there was no chance of the Tories ever winning it. There will be a Tory candidate but CCHQ will be focusing on Aberdeen South.
Given the MiC poll had a Burnham led Labour taking some Labour, LD and Green voters but not Tory voters a Burnham by election win wouldn’t be something the Tories would be that concerned with anyway
Got to be honest... this isn't a brilliant poll for Labour, if they are reliant on Restore trying to get over the line. It's like the frog relying on the scorpion. Mind you, the Tories being on 2% is absolutely pathetic. Nice one Kemi.
Makerfield is only the 29th Reform target seat, Labour could lose Makerfield and still have an overall majority. So if Reform fail to win it, even due to Restore, that would be a disaster for Farage.
Makerfield has never been won by the Conservatives so there won’t be players there anyway
Have the Conservative Party actually given up on around 300 seats.
They never gave up like this before under any leadership.
It's lazy It lacks vision It stinks of arrogance
That Kemi is not going in hard to win Bootle is lazy, lacking in vision, stinks of arrogance? Bugger off.
That the Tories are still competing in 350 seats will come as a shock to those who have been reading the Party its Last Rites since before 2024. Remember those posters on here claiming there was a real chance the Tories would come out the 2024 election with zero seats? Some of us remember who thery were. Not exactly a credit to the reputation of political betting, eh?
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
Nothing will come of it. Alberta throws its toys out the pram from time to time, and it's usually about tax or the federal government interfering with its oil revenues, so fires a shot across the bows.
Ah, Scotland
(runs away and hides)
Unless the Canadian federal government has a deep commitment to democracy I imagine they’re comfortable with a referendum because they think they’ll win it. Westminster otoh will not allow ‘the most powerful devolved parliament in the world’ to decide whether or not to have a referendum because they’re shitting their pants that they’d lose it.
There are grilled kipper fillets and poached haddock on the breakfast menu, and everyone's names are handwritten on the tables with their room number.
I must admit, I'm quite enjoying this.
Do the premises have a pervasive fishy pong for that full retro experience? Those little absorbent bits of carpet round the lav can also contribute to this.
I could easily see that, but this place was definitely clean.
I'm now on Sandown beach, bright yellow sands, and the weather is stunning, as are the views to the cliffs, but there are perhaps 15-20 people here in total.
Why does everyone crowd out Brighton and Bournemouth when they could come here instead?
Because Brighton especially is thought hip and groovy - and has always been thus.
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
Nothing will come of it. Alberta throws its toys out the pram from time to time, and it's usually about tax or the federal government interfering with its oil revenues, so fires a shot across the bows.
Ah, Scotland
(runs away and hides)
The UK government won’t allow an independence referendum there now anymore than Spain will Catalonia. The Canadian government is getting into dangerous territory allowing Alberta an independence referendum. It may have scraped a defeat of the last Quebec independence referendum but it is risky allowing Alberta one too
The last poll had 67% for remaining with Canada and the spectre of Trump means it’s not really a risk . Leaving Canada to be pushed around by the WH I doubt will help in selling separation .
Some 2016 polls had Remain over 60%. Alberta is also a staunchly conservative province which hates PM Carney and his Liberal Canadian government more than it hates Trump
Got to be honest... this isn't a brilliant poll for Labour, if they are reliant on Restore trying to get over the line. It's like the frog relying on the scorpion. Mind you, the Tories being on 2% is absolutely pathetic. Nice one Kemi.
Makerfield is only the 29th Reform target seat, Labour could lose Makerfield and still have an overall majority. So if Reform fail to win it, even due to Restore, that would be a disaster for Farage.
Makerfield has never been won by the Conservatives so there won’t be players there anyway
Have the Conservative Party actually given up on around 300 seats.
They never gave up like this before under any leadership.
It's lazy It lacks vision It stinks of arrogance
Given even Boris and Thatcher failed to win Makerfield there was no chance of the Tories ever winning it. There will be a Tory candidate but CCHQ will be focusing on Aberdeen South.
Given the MiC poll had a Burnham led Labour taking some Labour, LD and Green voters but not Tory voters a Burnham by election win wouldn’t be something the Tories would be that concerned with anyway
What the Conservatives should want in places where they are a bit-part player is a question that they haven't really had to face before.
I reckon there are two ways to go:
1 Reform are on the right, and have a chance to beat Burnham, so Conservatives should wish them godspeed.
2 Reform have already eaten the Conservatives' lunch and are eyeing up their afternoon tea, dinner and midnight snack. They are also so right (wing) that it's wrong. It's better that Labour win, or even the Liberals, than Reform.
You can make a case for either argument, though the first feels like pleasure to me and the second business.
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
Nothing will come of it. Alberta throws its toys out the pram from time to time, and it's usually about tax or the federal government interfering with its oil revenues, so fires a shot across the bows.
Ah, Scotland
(runs away and hides)
The UK government won’t allow an independence referendum there now anymore than Spain will Catalonia. The Canadian government is getting into dangerous territory allowing Alberta an independence referendum. It may have scraped a defeat of the last Quebec independence referendum but it is risky allowing Alberta one too
The last poll had 67% for remaining with Canada and the spectre of Trump means it’s not really a risk . Leaving Canada to be pushed around by the WH I doubt will help in selling separation .
Some 2016 polls had Remain over 60%. Alberta is also a staunchly conservative province which hates PM Carney and his Liberal Canadian government more than it hates Trump
That polling has been consistent for years and Trumps approval ratings in Alberta are still well into negative territory . Only the MAGA loving minority in Alberta want to be the 51st state .
There are grilled kipper fillets and poached haddock on the breakfast menu, and everyone's names are handwritten on the tables with their room number.
I must admit, I'm quite enjoying this.
Do the premises have a pervasive fishy pong for that full retro experience? Those little absorbent bits of carpet round the lav can also contribute to this.
I could easily see that, but this place was definitely clean.
I'm now on Sandown beach, bright yellow sands, and the weather is stunning, as are the views to the cliffs, but there are perhaps 15-20 people here in total.
Why does everyone crowd out Brighton and Bournemouth when they could come here instead?
Because Brighton especially is thought hip and groovy - and has always been thus.
There's also the simple practical thing that the Solent adds a meaningful bit of hassle and expense to the trip. But yes, it's mostly "go to France and clocks go forward an hour, go to the IoW and they go back fifty years."
Which is sometimes just the thing. I'm looking forward to filling nicknacks with coloured sand in August.
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
Nothing will come of it. Alberta throws its toys out the pram from time to time, and it's usually about tax or the federal government interfering with its oil revenues, so fires a shot across the bows.
Ah, Scotland
(runs away and hides)
The UK government won’t allow an independence referendum there now anymore than Spain will Catalonia. The Canadian government is getting into dangerous territory allowing Alberta an independence referendum. It may have scraped a defeat of the last Quebec independence referendum but it is risky allowing Alberta one too
The last poll had 67% for remaining with Canada and the spectre of Trump means it’s not really a risk . Leaving Canada to be pushed around by the WH I doubt will help in selling separation .
Some 2016 polls had Remain over 60%. Alberta is also a staunchly conservative province which hates PM Carney and his Liberal Canadian government more than it hates Trump
That polling has been consistent for years and Trumps approval ratings in Alberta are still well into negative territory . Only the MAGA loving minority in Alberta want to be the 51st state .
Trump’s approval rating in Canada is little different to what it is in the USA now, still far higher in Alberta than the rest of Canada
Good morning, everyone. F1 wibble will be up either mid-morning or late morning (trying to do some work today so I can avoid it tomorrow, until the Labour VPN ban comes in and I 'can avoid' work altogether...).
With the return of Mr Saturday to the front of the grid, should we start calling our F1 tipster Mr Sunday ?
There are grilled kipper fillets and poached haddock on the breakfast menu, and everyone's names are handwritten on the tables with their room number.
I must admit, I'm quite enjoying this.
Do the premises have a pervasive fishy pong for that full retro experience? Those little absorbent bits of carpet round the lav can also contribute to this.
I could easily see that, but this place was definitely clean.
I'm now on Sandown beach, bright yellow sands, and the weather is stunning, as are the views to the cliffs, but there are perhaps 15-20 people here in total.
Why does everyone crowd out Brighton and Bournemouth when they could come here instead?
Because Brighton especially is thought hip and groovy - and has always been thus.
There's also the simple practical thing that the Solent adds a meaningful bit of hassle and expense to the trip. But yes, it's mostly "go to France and clocks go forward an hour, go to the IoW and they go back fifty years."
Which is sometimes just the thing. I'm looking forward to filling nicknacks with coloured sand in August.
"It's always Saturday night in Brighton and always Sunday morning in Eastbourne."
Got to be honest... this isn't a brilliant poll for Labour, if they are reliant on Restore trying to get over the line. It's like the frog relying on the scorpion. Mind you, the Tories being on 2% is absolutely pathetic. Nice one Kemi.
Makerfield is only the 29th Reform target seat, Labour could lose Makerfield and still have an overall majority. So if Reform fail to win it, even due to Restore, that would be a disaster for Farage.
Makerfield has never been won by the Conservatives so there won’t be players there anyway
Have the Conservative Party actually given up on around 300 seats.
They never gave up like this before under any leadership.
It's lazy It lacks vision It stinks of arrogance
Given even Boris and Thatcher failed to win Makerfield there was no chance of the Tories ever winning it. There will be a Tory candidate but CCHQ will be focusing on Aberdeen South.
Given the MiC poll had a Burnham led Labour taking some Labour, LD and Green voters but not Tory voters a Burnham by election win wouldn’t be something the Tories would be that concerned with anyway
What the Conservatives should want in places where they are a bit-part player is a question that they haven't really had to face before.
I reckon there are two ways to go:
1 Reform are on the right, and have a chance to beat Burnham, so Conservatives should wish them godspeed.
2 Reform have already eaten the Conservatives' lunch and are eyeing up their afternoon tea, dinner and midnight snack. They are also so right (wing) that it's wrong. It's better that Labour win, or even the Liberals, than Reform.
You can make a case for either argument, though the first feels like pleasure to me and the second business.
1 Nope MiC showed a Burnham led Labour takes Reform and Green and LD not Tory votes. Though by only putting up a token effort in Makerfield Farage can’t blame us for splitting his vote if Burnham wins, even if he can blame Lowe given Restore are campaigning hard in Makerfield.
2 Is more the CCHQ view I suspect, most in Tory Central Office would prefer Burnham wins Makerfield than Reform
I linked to a clip of Tucker Carlson appearing on Israeli TV which I found fascinating. The israeli interviewer couldn't understand why killing thousands of Gazan children wasn't justified. I know Carlson has metamorphosed in the last year or so but in his new incarnation there are few interviewers better at their craft than he is.
I haven't quite worked out what Carlson's game is. All you say is correct but why? Is his hostility to Israel and Netanyahu because he discovered his heart or because he is simply an Anti-Semite?
There are now five or six who have changed their position radically over the last year. I don't think it was a calculation but a lack of understanding. Israel have always been the good guys and the right wing commentators just went along with it. Then came Gaza and they took the trouble to do some investigation and they were shocked as many others who who followed the same path were and the deeper they dug the worse it got.
Not to mention MAGA's whole ‘no foreign wars’ mantra.
There are grilled kipper fillets and poached haddock on the breakfast menu, and everyone's names are handwritten on the tables with their room number.
I must admit, I'm quite enjoying this.
Do the premises have a pervasive fishy pong for that full retro experience? Those little absorbent bits of carpet round the lav can also contribute to this.
I could easily see that, but this place was definitely clean.
I'm now on Sandown beach, bright yellow sands, and the weather is stunning, as are the views to the cliffs, but there are perhaps 15-20 people here in total.
Why does everyone crowd out Brighton and Bournemouth when they could come here instead?
No man is an island, entire of itself, but the Isle of Wight is which makes it harder to get there. Likewise the Isle of Man up north somewhere.
"Alberta is about to decide whether it wants to stay in Canada or take steps to become an independent nation.
The provincial premier, Danielle Smith, recently announced that Alberta will hold a referendum to determine its future in Canada. The question to be asked will be: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”"
Nothing will come of it. Alberta throws its toys out the pram from time to time, and it's usually about tax or the federal government interfering with its oil revenues, so fires a shot across the bows.
Ah, Scotland
(runs away and hides)
Totally different from Scotland as Alberta ( not even a country ) is allowed to decide to have a vote, they are not held prisoner
Comments
Not helped by Trump funding the separatists
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/alberta-canada-separatists-military-currency-trump-b2919359.html
It’s a mindset thing
See: helpful aren't I?
Mike Pompeo has no idea what the fuck he’s talking about. He should shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals. He’s not read into anything that’s happening, so how would he know.
https://x.com/StevenCheung47/status/2058329688490086743
Sensible folk the Canadians, apart from some quislings in Alberta.
The case against Mr Burnham is that he is an opportunistic chameleon who adjusts his identity to the prevailing wind. The case for him is paradoxically much the same. Such is the dire plight of Labour, perhaps what it needs is a fluid pragmatist with a proven capacity for reinvention and salesmanship. Being absent from parliament for nearly a decade would once have been a massive handicap for someone with leadership ambitions; his lack of any recent ministerial experience is now considered helpful. He is the screen on which everyone can project their dream of what the ideal Labour government would be.
In a bid to reassure the markets, he now declares he’d stick to Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules. He’s also committed to the manifesto promise not to raise the main rates of income tax, national insurance and VAT. So, on core issues of economic management, a Burnham government doesn’t sound like a change from the Starmer one. It sounds pretty much the same.
He would disrupt the status quo if he delivered on his promise to give much more devolution of power to localities. He would also be the first Labour leader since 1945 to unequivocally advocate the replacement of the first-past-the-post electoral system with proportional representation.
Mr Burnham is a lot more popular than the man he seeks to supplant, but he’d inherit the same daunting dilemmas. What do we do about the unsustainable pensioners’ triple-lock? How do we reform welfare? Where do we find more resources for defence? Is there an affordable fix for social care? And for youth unemployment? How do you make the economy more productive? Is it possible to raise more from tax without suffocating growth? The times demand a leader prepared to grapple with tough trade-offs and sell difficult-to-swallow choices to both party and electorate.
As mayor, he’s been known to backtrack when he’s encountered opposition. Talking to people, perhaps the most troubling observation about Andy Burnham is that he “likes to be liked”. If he does get to be prime minister, and if he is going to be any good at making decisions, he will have to cope with being hated.
Perhaps the time has come to accept we cannot afford pensioners and they will have to accept they didn’t contribute enough during their working years to justify the amount they want to take out now.
It's that weird obsession where if there are too many white people in one place, with insufficient diversity ratios, it is seen as suspect and a problem and worthy of comment.
So, yes, I found the comment a bit strange too. And that has nothing to do with Restore or their remigration policies as reported, which I wouldn't support and I doubt Andy would either.
That banana. God.
I agree on the culturally English point, but the other is simply because we don't want to concede there is a competing label that might be a real political risk.
England was 98-99% White up until the end of WWII, with concentrated Irish immigration in several major cities, and a small Jewish community, and even a very small international one, but the vast majority could (probably) trace their ethnicity back to the anglo-saxons or native Britons. So did and does exist.
I think it's entirely counter-productive to deny this because it gives succour to White supremacists who argue their identity is being wiped out.
So, yes, we should accept it exists and we should also accept it's not relevant to English political identity today, which is inclusive.
The tea tray had custard creams and bourbon creams, and the ceiling lights have those papier mache type shades that I don't think I've seen since the 1990s.
I can confirm the "colour TV" is working.
When they are all going to resign to allow professionals who know what they are talking about take over?
you’re hearing it more and more, folks, they’re saying no president has ever lost a war like this, no president has given up more material resources and lives for less than nothing
https://bsky.app/profile/golikehellmachine.com/post/3mmkj2j6xsc2h
You seem to be in danger of saying it's the former.
Trouble is, the population is not homogeneous; people are not distributed equally round Britain. In some parts of the country, there are Muslim or immigrant majorities (accepting your combining these overlapping categories).
Are you saying your friend's mum would be right to support Restore if she lives in one of these places? We might need to rescind your membership of Hope Not Hate for this double plus wrongthink.
naughtyordinary politician who sees nothing wrong with exploiting expenses for a finer life. Next thing he will be accepting free meals biked to Downing Street and designer glasses and from there it's a hop, skip and a jump to £5 million gifts from crypto billionaires and the FIFA prize for not being Keir Starmer.Andy Arnold’s wife and fellow Reform UK councillor, Theresa, has claimed the tattoo is a ‘misunderstood’ buddhist peace symbol.
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/swastika-tattoo-is-misunderstood-buddhist-peace-symbol-says-reform-councillors-wife-8638451
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZqugWCoFMjk
I mean, we won't know whether it keeps the Epstein files out of national consciousness until the midterms until they've actually happened.
Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the IRGC in charge of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.
@gbrew24
The US did manage to kill Iran's leader, a historically cautious decision-maker with a healthy respect for US military power, and replace him with a collective leadership dominated by military figures who believe the most effective means of ensuring Iran's defense is taking the global economy hostage while turning the Persian Gulf into a live fire zone.
It’s easy to blame governments for an inability to provide for your own future deciding to accept the delusion rather than facing facts
Every ethnicity/nation/race is a mix if you look back far enough, or make enough fuss about inevitable exceptions such as a few African sailors in early modern London, or a couple of larger waves of political refugees such as the Huguenots in the 17th century and the East European Jews from around 1880.
But we were pretty homogeneous until the unplanned and uncontrolled wave of non-white immigration started under the Attlee government, certainly by comparison with what has happened since.
The public, and especially the white working class, whose areas were transformed, was never consulted about the huge demographic change that occurred. According to Macmillan's diary, in 1955, Churchill wanted to run on the slogan "Keep England White" but dropped the idea, and in any case handed over to Eden before the election that year.
Given that, they have taken the transformation of much of urban Britain with remarkable forbearance and tolerance.
https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/photographs/item/1998-73015
Yes, Upminster is in Havering, why do you ask?
I must admit, I'm quite enjoying this.
(runs away and hides)
For years, Netanyahu built his political identity around being “Mr. Iran,” the leader who insisted that only pressure, deterrence, and force could stop the Iranian regime. And now, after multiple rounds of operational successes but one resounding strategic failure, and after finally succeeding in drawing the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, he may be forced to accept an agreement that not only legitimizes the very regime he sought to weaken, but also exposes the collapse of his long-standing Iran doctrine.
His approach was based on the belief that more pressure, more military power, and tighter coordination between Israel and the United States would eventually either force Iran into submission or destabilize the regime itself. Instead, the result has been a more radicalized, more resilient, and more dangerous Iran, one that even Washington now hesitates to confront militarily again.
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2058293767783043080?s=20
The sooner his own Country imprisons him for corruption better still
Best of all try him for a war crimes and if guilty the same penalty he and his rabid rats seek to bestow on Hamas.
DEATH PENALTY
The sooner his own Country imprisons him for corruption better still
Best of all try him for a war crimes and if guilty the same penalty he and his rabid rats seek to bestow on Hamas.
DEATH PENALTY
This deal really is the least worse option for Trump.
The global upheaval of WW1, financial crash and then WW2 slowed the globe down
The technical advances in WW2 saw a massive knock on in travel, specifically air travel.
By the mid 50s as rationing eased and ended the implications of British Colonialism began to be understood.
We took over huge tranches of the globe enforced slavery and other rules.
It only dawned on many that this entitled them to come to the Country that had ruled them.
Accessible travel for all was the key to the lock that opened the doors.
It goes without saying that Carlson is entirely supportive of Putin.
Makerfield has never been won by the Conservatives so there won’t be players there anyway
Trump is stupid. Not that stupid.
They never gave up like this before under any leadership.
It's lazy
It lacks vision
It stinks of arrogance
Bullshit, Nigel.
Why would Moscow imperil their useful idiot?
Rather, it smacks of Farage getting feedback that his close links to Moscow are playing badly with potential but not liklely voters.
If he really is pissed off with Moscow, then how about having Reform councils fly the Ukrainian flag then?
Although life expectancy is not really going up pulling forward retirement age, currently we start moving to 68 in 2044 seems inevitable.
Will be interesting to see if they extend the age at which you can access your SIPP. Currently 57.
I'm now on Sandown beach, bright yellow sands, and the weather is stunning, as are the views to the cliffs, but there are perhaps 15-20 people here in total.
Why does everyone crowd out Brighton and Bournemouth when they could come here instead?
Given the MiC poll had a Burnham led Labour taking some Labour, LD and Green voters but not Tory voters a Burnham by election win wouldn’t be something the Tories would be that concerned with anyway
That Kemi is not going in hard to win Bootle is lazy, lacking in vision, stinks of arrogance? Bugger off.
That the Tories are still competing in 350 seats will come as a shock to those who have been reading the Party its Last Rites since before 2024. Remember those posters on here claiming there was a real chance the Tories would come out the 2024 election with zero seats? Some of us remember who thery were. Not exactly a credit to the reputation of political betting, eh?
I reckon there are two ways to go:
1 Reform are on the right, and have a chance to beat Burnham, so Conservatives should wish them godspeed.
2 Reform have already eaten the Conservatives' lunch and are eyeing up their afternoon tea, dinner and midnight snack. They are also so right (wing) that it's wrong. It's better that Labour win, or even the Liberals, than Reform.
You can make a case for either argument, though the first feels like pleasure to me and the second business.
Which is sometimes just the thing. I'm looking forward to filling nicknacks with coloured sand in August.
2 Is more the CCHQ view I suspect, most in Tory Central Office would prefer Burnham wins Makerfield than Reform
At least we know where he stands.