How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.
“Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......
.....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.
Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
I dislike squaddies in general so I'm really just more pro-meghan than Harry. But to be fair these were the bad muslims that banned music and such like.
Surely he must be tempted to go sooner while Corbyn is still in post and the opposition is split. I can't see BP being much of a threat if he is advocating WTO Brexit.
The tories will lose most of their 13 Scottish seats and a few in the home counties.
Where do they get their new seats from?
Bolsover.
Start with some of the 28 gains Labour made from the Cons last time. Maybe not the London seats but Canterbury, Stockton South and many Lab/Con marginals should all be easy with a modest resurgence in the Libs vote.
Without sounding like @HYUFD too much, the polls do show a window of opportunity around 31/10 where Boris could win a majority in the euphoria of us leaving the EU before the impacts become clear. How long that window of opportunity lasts I don't know but that's clearly the pivotal point so November 7th becomes likely. We leave with much pro-Government fanfare in the campaign and then vote while still high on the heady fumes of full sovereignty or freedom.
Boris may on the other hand realise the Opposition is weak, disparate and far from co-ordinated and in fact he can go on with his 270 loyalists and the tacit support of Corbyn and his loyalists through 31/10 and run the clock down. The next election isn't required until 2022 which gives time to clear the hump of economic dislocation and get some trade deals in place.
The Conservatives may suffer some short-term poll hits and the 2020 local elections may not be a lot of fun (however, if Siobhan Benita ousts Sadiq Khan aided and abetted by Conservative second preference votes and some Labour ones this would more than mask Conservative losses among the 840 or seats they are defending).
That still gives Boris plenty of time to work up the pre-election giveaway and go to the country in 2022 claiming Brexit as a success, embracing Global Britain on the back of a temporary debt-filled boom. Re-election in 2022 and then who knows?
If the government somehow imposes Brexit on the country and it is a chaotic mess, or even just unpopular in the short term, the government won't survive to 2022.
I dont think it intends to. It just Hope's if it can get Brexit it gets either a chance to win or at least a chance to mitigate damage by retaining more of the Tory vote.
If they wanted to squeak to 2022 they needed to pass the deal, oust May then give the new leader time to rebuild and hope to gods the DUP or indys could be bought off to give time.
I find it amusing that "We give the government a monopoly on legislation requiring the spending of money for very good reasons: finances have to be under the control of a single entity or there'd be chaos as MPs pass legislation requiring their local hospital (or whatever) is kept open." is precisely the way the American system works.
Mr. Glenn, that might not be hugely surprising. Putin's been there for two decades (eight years as president, a four year 'I'm just the PM' interval, then another eight years) and he needs to take a break again soon. Perhaps permanently.
The current world economic slowdown is hitting commodity prices, and therefore hurting Russia rather badly.
(There's a wonderful irony here. Putin thought that Trump would weaken the US to the benefit of Russia, which is true. What he didn't realise is that he had created the environment for a trade war, which would send commodity prices spiralling, and hurt Russia far more than either China or the US.)
Spiraling downwards ?
Last Autumn oil was close $85/barrel. It's now $55. Coal has dropped similarly.
It's been a small, but meaningful, boost to the UK economy.
Mr. Glenn, that might not be hugely surprising. Putin's been there for two decades (eight years as president, a four year 'I'm just the PM' interval, then another eight years) and he needs to take a break again soon. Perhaps permanently.
The current world economic slowdown is hitting commodity prices, and therefore hurting Russia rather badly.
(There's a wonderful irony here. Putin thought that Trump would weaken the US to the benefit of Russia, which is true. What he didn't realise is that he had created the environment for a trade war, which would send commodity prices spiralling, and hurt Russia far more than either China or the US.)
It was hubris on Putin's part. He thought that he could evict the US from Europe, and play European countries off against each other to allow Russia to integrate on its own terms, but instead he's led it down a strategic cul-de-sac where his own regime is teetering on the brink, and the only real option for Russia will be to come to an accommodation with the existing European order on the EU's terms.
Nov 7th would be a gamble on there being no immediate problems. Whilst I tend to agree with Cycle and others that the damage is more likely to be insidious and take a bit of time to appear, if there were to be chaos in Dover from Nov 1st it would clearly knock straight into the election before the government could do much about it.
Apart from all the Conservative postal votes which would be in the bag before a single problem occurred.
If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.
I'll stick with 'scum'.
On whose planet is Woke and Wokeness acceptable terms?
Several people on here, for instance. Or see the video below.
As the term originally came from America, it seems incredible that people can use such a term to strop about people who are complaining about very real societal issues.
IMV some complaints about societal issues go too far. In which case you argue against them or just point and laugh. 'Woke' and 'wokeness' are hideous terms designed to allow people just to put their fingers in their ears and go na-na-na-na..
Nov 7th would be a gamble on there being no immediate problems. Whilst I tend to agree with Cycle and others that the damage is more likely to be insidious and take a bit of time to appear, if there were to be chaos in Dover from Nov 1st it would clearly knock straight into the election before the government could do much about it.
Apart from all the Conservative postal votes which would be in the bag before a single problem occurred.
That's a good point. An election in which a materially significant event is scheduled to occur in the middle of voting cannot produce a fair result.
Nov 7th would be a gamble on there being no immediate problems. Whilst I tend to agree with Cycle and others that the damage is more likely to be insidious and take a bit of time to appear, if there were to be chaos in Dover from Nov 1st it would clearly knock straight into the election before the government could do much about it.
Apart from all the Conservative postal votes which would be in the bag before a single problem occurred.
It wouldn't take until Nov 7th for the pound to fall (further) or the country's credit rating to be cut (again).
That Farage should say derogatory things about the late Queen Mother, someone widely regarded as a national treasure, says a lot about his political judgement. This won't be forgotten.
Is she? I thought a lot of people hold her responsible for the Charles and Diana disaster.
Farage is being an absolute oaf attacking people who cannot answer back. As far as one can tell, Meghan makes Harry happy. Some of the comments online about her are nasty and racist. The Royals can be criticised for being hypocrites on occasion. But picking on one particular member and her husband has a nasty undertone which ought to shame but won’t Farage and his supporters.
That Farage should say derogatory things about the late Queen Mother, someone widely regarded as a national treasure, says a lot about his political judgement. This won't be forgotten.
It is pretty odd to make comments like this about someone who passed away (at a guess) the best part of 20 years ago. They have no relevance to anything as far as I can see.
The context was that Farage didn't want Charles to become king, so he hoped the Queen would live as long as possible, and he was encouraged by the fact her mother had reached 101 despite drinking, smoking and being overweight. Much as I despise Farage, it wasn't a gratuitous insult (not to the the QM anyway).
If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.
I'll stick with 'scum'.
On whose planet is Woke and Wokeness acceptable terms?
Several people on here, for instance. Or see the video below.
As the term originally came from America, it seems incredible that people can use such a term to strop about people who are complaining about very real societal issues.
IMV some complaints about societal issues go too far. In which case you argue against them or just point and laugh. 'Woke' and 'wokeness' are hideous terms designed to allow people just to put their fingers in their ears and go na-na-na-na..
So you're saying you're Woke - but don't like the term. Got ya.
If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.
I'll stick with 'scum'.
On whose planet is Woke and Wokeness acceptable terms?
Several people on here, for instance. Or see the video below.
As the term originally came from America, it seems incredible that people can use such a term to strop about people who are complaining about very real societal issues.
IMV some complaints about societal issues go too far. In which case you argue against them or just point and laugh. 'Woke' and 'wokeness' are hideous terms designed to allow people just to put their fingers in their ears and go na-na-na-na..
So you're saying you're Woke - but don't like the term. Got ya.
I don't know if I'm 'woke' or not; as it's a crap term. Some may see me as 'woke', whilst a couple of feminist friends certainly wouldn't.
Mr. Jessop, genuinely surprised it bothered you that much (I used it in reference to Harry flying around the world to wibble about carbon emissions).
If it bothers you that much, I'll desist, but I'm a bit surprised. Just thought it a handy term for those who are achingly right-on whilst at the same time hypocritical.
Here's a question. Would a small November 7th victory (say majority of 10), with a No Deal Brexit and an overdue global slowdown coming down the track, be beneficial or detrimental long term to the Conservative Party? I would reckon it would be ERM times a few.
Nov 7th would be a gamble on there being no immediate problems. Whilst I tend to agree with Cycle and others that the damage is more likely to be insidious and take a bit of time to appear, if there were to be chaos in Dover from Nov 1st it would clearly knock straight into the election before the government could do much about it.
Apart from all the Conservative postal votes which would be in the bag before a single problem occurred.
Leavers trust Bozo and would post their votes early assuming with complete confidence that he will keep his promise and carry through to no deal rather than bottle (or be forced to bottle) at the last minute? With a whole week to go?
Nov 7th would be a gamble on there being no immediate problems. Whilst I tend to agree with Cycle and others that the damage is more likely to be insidious and take a bit of time to appear, if there were to be chaos in Dover from Nov 1st it would clearly knock straight into the election before the government could do much about it.
Apart from all the Conservative postal votes which would be in the bag before a single problem occurred.
I think there would be plenty of panic buying before the date of a No Deal Brexit. That might be one of the biggest immediate problems.
Here's a question. Would a small November 7th victory (say majority of 10), with a No Deal Brexit and an overdue global slowdown coming down the track, be beneficial or detrimental long term to the Conservative Party? I would reckon it would be ERM times a few.
Boris would be PM what the f*** would he care?
Oh, you mean us? Well that's a different matter...
Mr. Jessop, genuinely surprised it bothered you that much (I used it in reference to Harry flying around the world to wibble about carbon emissions).
If it bothers you that much, I'll desist, but I'm a bit surprised. Just thought it a handy term for those who are achingly right-on whilst at the same time hypocritical.
And that's part of the problem: people use it to mean all sorts of things, often nasty. for instance, I've seen several people in another place use it to denigrate those with the awful view that the US should perhaps, just perhaps, not allow every nutter to have easy access to assault weapons. Apparently thinking that it's a bad idea to be able to carry such weapons in public, yet alone own them, makes you 'woke'.
You might also want to consider what positions might have been seen as being 'woke' 20 or 30 years ago - say female priests in the CoE or gay marriage rights - which are now generally seen as being unremarkable.
If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.
I'll stick with 'scum'.
On whose planet is Woke and Wokeness acceptable terms?
Several people on here, for instance. Or see the video below.
As the term originally came from America, it seems incredible that people can use such a term to strop about people who are complaining about very real societal issues.
IMV some complaints about societal issues go too far. In which case you argue against them or just point and laugh. 'Woke' and 'wokeness' are hideous terms designed to allow people just to put their fingers in their ears and go na-na-na-na..
So you're saying you're Woke - but don't like the term. Got ya.
I don't know if I'm 'woke' or not; as it's a crap term. Some may see me as 'woke', whilst a couple of feminist friends certainly wouldn't.
For as long as I can remember I have woke up each morning. I must be one of the wokest people in my age group.
If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.
I'll stick with 'scum'.
On whose planet is Woke and Wokeness acceptable terms?
Several people on here, for instance. Or see the video below.
As the term originally came from America, it seems incredible that people can use such a term to strop about people who are complaining about very real societal issues.
IMV some complaints about societal issues go too far. In which case you argue against them or just point and laugh. 'Woke' and 'wokeness' are hideous terms designed to allow people just to put their fingers in their ears and go na-na-na-na..
So you're saying you're Woke - but don't like the term. Got ya.
I don't know if I'm 'woke' or not; as it's a crap term. Some may see me as 'woke', whilst a couple of feminist friends certainly wouldn't.
For as long as I can remember I have woke up each morning. I must be one of the wokest people in my age group.
I have a five year old son, who I am essentially sole carer for at the moment, during a holiday period. I feel like the least woke person on Earth ...
god knows how people with four or more kids manage ...
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
Johnson has started well on home issues. When Labour came out with the whole "might damage community relations vis a vis stop & search I thought to myself my Corbyn just can't resist a bloody big elephant trap can he ? Sticking Patel into bat there was a deeply clever move - she'll make Labour look very soft on crime.
IIRC the Coalition was routinely surprised by how far to the right of them the majority were on benefits & benefit sanctions too - every time they researched a change to see if they'd gone "too far" the message came back "no, go further..."
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.
On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.
The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
I'm not sure why Boris is being praised for this. He's the tory pm. The tories are in government, so why doesn't he just do it? It doesn't need an act of parliament to enforce sentencing guidelines surely?
Let's just hope that includes upper-class users of hard drugs!
My back of an envelope policy for law and order:
Legalise and liberalise consensual crimes. Legalise prostitution [actually this isn't technically illegal anyway in this country, just advertising it is, end that ban], legalise drugs. I used to just think cannabis should be legalised, but I'd legalise, tax and regulate the lot of them now - if someone wants to buy cocaine I'd rather they do so over the counter at Boots after showing ID to show they're an adult than from a knife-wielding criminal who doesn't give a s##t. The war on drugs is lost.
Be tougher on violent and serial criminals. People who commit GBH shouldn't serve just a few weeks in prison before they're released to do it again.
Fewer crimes, stricter enforcement of the crimes we do have.
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.
On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.
The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
All Police should have body cams before they do this, and all Police should be forced to advise people they have a right to get their own mobile phones out and film it before they get searched.
That will discourage racial profiling or searches without the Police having good reason.
If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.
I'll stick with 'scum'.
On whose planet is Woke and Wokeness acceptable terms?
Several people on here, for instance. Or see the video below.
As the term originally came from America, it seems incredible that people can use such a term to strop about people who are complaining about very real societal issues.
IMV some complaints about societal issues go too far. In which case you argue against them or just point and laugh. 'Woke' and 'wokeness' are hideous terms designed to allow people just to put their fingers in their ears and go na-na-na-na..
So you're saying you're Woke - but don't like the term. Got ya.
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.
On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.
The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
All Police should have body cams before they do this, and all Police should be forced to advise people they have a right to get their own mobile phones out and film it before they get searched.
That will discourage racial profiling or searches without the Police having good reason.
I think the point of the proposed law is that police don't need to have a good reason.
Let's just hope that includes upper-class users of hard drugs!
My back of an envelope policy for law and order:
Legalise and liberalise consensual crimes. Legalise prostitution [actually this isn't technically illegal anyway in this country, just advertising it is, end that ban], legalise drugs. I used to just think cannabis should be legalised, but I'd legalise, tax and regulate the lot of them now - if someone wants to buy cocaine I'd rather they do so over the counter at Boots after showing ID to show they're an adult than from a knife-wielding criminal who doesn't give a s##t. The war on drugs is lost.
Be tougher on violent and serial criminals. People who commit GBH shouldn't serve just a few weeks in prison before they're released to do it again.
Fewer crimes, stricter enforcement of the crimes we do have.
Flying the flag for "the libertarian wing of the conservative party"
I'm not sure why Boris is being praised for this. He's the tory pm. The tories are in government, so why doesn't he just do it? It doesn't need an act of parliament to enforce sentencing guidelines surely?
Trump playbook. Run against THEM! You know, THEM! The reason why things are so shit these days. THOSE people!
Once is certain if Boris does not deliver Brexit he is toast and Farage will have him for lunch, so he will refuse to extend Article 50 beyond October 31st and refuse to move from No 10 until Brecit has been delivered, thus forcing the Commons to VOMC him and force a general election to stop Brexit
I'm not sure why Boris is being praised for this. He's the tory pm. The tories are in government, so why doesn't he just do it? It doesn't need an act of parliament to enforce sentencing guidelines surely?
Trump playbook. Run against THEM! You know, THEM! The reason why things are so shit these days. THOSE people!
Like a lot of things, there are a lot of variable.
Here are three things that might exert upwards pressure:
1. If the pound weakens, it will increase inflation because a lot of what people spend their money on is imported. However, this impact will be less than you might expect on imported goods. Simply, Tesco's costs - such as rent and staff - don't increase as the pound falls.
2. The government's current spending plans will probably have an impact. Simply, if the government deliberately runs a growing deficit, it will do so without the productive capacity of the British economy having increased (in the short term), and therefore any government deficit is likely to result in a greater trade deficit and higher prices.
3. It may raise wages for employers, especially if net migration were to turn negative. That would certainly flow through into higher prices over time. However, it's also possible that an economic slowdown means that this is completely mitigated.
And here's two that might exert downward pressure:
1. Less money flowing in from abroad to buy properties in London. If a Russian oligarch (or Chinese businessman or whoever) buys a £20m apartment in Mayfair, that has exactly the same impact on the British economy as the government spending £20m more than it earns through taxes.
2. Following on fron this, there is an inevitable degree of correlation between housing costs and inflation generally. Part is explicit (implied rent is part of the calculations), part is a consequence of how money flows around the economy. Lower demand for housing, meaning lower prices, will result in higher savings rates (and therefore lower aggregate demand and inflation).
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
Not much bloody point stopping and searching and arresting and then the cases either not going to court at all or taking a year or more to go to court. How popular is that going to be, do you think?
Or are we just going to throw people into prison without trial?
IIRC the Coalition was routinely surprised by how far to the right of them the majority were on benefits & benefit sanctions too - every time they researched a change to see if they'd gone "too far" the message came back "no, go further..."
The coalition was more right-wing on austerity than most voters but more liberal on social issues like crime and immigration (though about right on gay marriage), the result was Brexit. Boris has got the message with his tax cut and spending spree plans and his commitment to end early release of criminals and introduce an Australian style points system for migrants
Here's a question. Would a small November 7th victory (say majority of 10), with a No Deal Brexit and an overdue global slowdown coming down the track, be beneficial or detrimental long term to the Conservative Party? I would reckon it would be ERM times a few.
Maybe but the Tories would have won a 4th term for only the 2nd time in the last 100 years and Corbyn would have been beaten with the LDs snapping at his heels
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.
On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.
The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
All Police should have body cams before they do this, and all Police should be forced to advise people they have a right to get their own mobile phones out and film it before they get searched.
That will discourage racial profiling or searches without the Police having good reason.
I think the point of the proposed law is that police don't need to have a good reason.
No I think the point is that the Police don't need to prove they have a good reason.
If an officer has a reasonable suspicion they will be able to do this, but it will be on their own heads that they chose to do it. Officers should be free to use their own sense, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't use sense!
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.
On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.
The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
That involves trusting the police’s judgment. Now look at Operation Midland and ask yourself if you want police with that level of judgment deciding whether to stop and search repeatedly your sons on their nights out.
My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.
Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise.
So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.
On the latest Yougov on UNS the Tories gain 31 seats from Labour and only lose 14 to the LDs and 5 to the SNP
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
Not much bloody point stopping and searching and arresting and then the cases either not going to court at all or taking a year or more to go to court. How popular is that going to be, do you think?
Or are we just going to throw people into prison without trial?
Another reason to go with my proposal of getting rid of a lot of consensual crimes [drugs, prostitution etc] but coming down harder on crimes we do have. The courts don't need to prat around with consensual crimes then and can give full attention to crimes.
Put less crimes in front of the courts but allow the courts to give better service and better judgement on the crimes that it does deal with.
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.
On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.
The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
All Police should have body cams before they do this, and all Police should be forced to advise people they have a right to get their own mobile phones out and film it before they get searched.
That will discourage racial profiling or searches without the Police having good reason.
I think the point of the proposed law is that police don't need to have a good reason.
No I think the point is that the Police don't need to prove they have a good reason.
If an officer has a reasonable suspicion they will be able to do this, but it will be on their own heads that they chose to do it. Officers should be free to use their own sense, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't use sense!
Ah well yes that is true but I think those lines would be blurred.
I'm not sure why Boris is being praised for this. He's the tory pm. The tories are in government, so why doesn't he just do it? It doesn't need an act of parliament to enforce sentencing guidelines surely?
That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
Not much bloody point stopping and searching and arresting and then the cases either not going to court at all or taking a year or more to go to court. How popular is that going to be, do you think?
People don't think about that kind of thing generally. It wasn't a point about effectivness, it was a point about popularity - would you dispute promising such moves would be popular?
If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.
I'll stick with 'scum'.
It's not an insult, rather the opposite. It means being possessed of the ability and the inclination to recognize and call out racism in Western society against people who are not white.
So if I call you 'woke', a suitable response would be to shrug and go, "Not so sure about that, but I do my best." Perhaps with a self-deprecating grin.
But please note that it does NOT imply any other great qualities. You can be woke and yet an utter plonker, and you can be a terrific guy/gal who is not at all woke.
Also important is that the condition of wokeness is a destination and the journey is one way. Thus if you are not woke, you can awake and become so. But once woke, that is it, you will never revert to not being. You will be woke until the grave.
Which makes sense if you think about it. Once a person sheds their ignorance and/or relaxed tolerance of racism they will not (and will not want to) rediscover it. It would be like deliberately wearing your old over-sized clothes after successfully losing three stones.
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.
On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.
The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
That involves trusting the police’s judgment. Now look at Operation Midland and ask yourself if you want police with that level of judgment deciding whether to stop and search repeatedly your sons on their nights out.
It is worse than that. Suppose PC Dixon is quite right to stop and search young Winston. All by the book. Everyone is happy. Winston goes on his way.
Whatever it was about Winston that triggered that perfectly correct search is still there.
He will be stopped by every copper he meets on his way home from the table tennis tournament at the church youth club.
And half a dozen perfectly reasonable and entirely lawful searches later, Winston is just about ready to torch Scotland Yard.
If 'woke' and 'wokeness' are now acceptable terms, then one is needed for those who use it derogatorily.
I'll stick with 'scum'.
It's not an insult, rather the opposite. It means being possessed of the ability and the inclination to recognize and call out racism in Western society against people who are not white.
So if I call you 'woke', a suitable response would be to shrug and go, "Not so sure about that, but I do my best." Perhaps with a self-deprecating grin.
But please note that it does NOT imply any other great qualities. You can be woke and yet an utter plonker, and you can be a terrific guy/gal who is not at all woke.
Also important is that the condition of wokeness is a destination and the journey is one way. Thus if you are not woke, you can awake and become so. But once woke, that is it, you will never revert to not being. You will be woke until the grave.
Which makes sense if you think about it. Once a person sheds their ignorance and/or relaxed tolerance of racism they will not (and will not want to) rediscover it. It would be like deliberately wearing your old over-sized clothes after successfully losing three stones.
At least we all knew where we stood with the term SJW
Bloody obvious it would be popular. Working class communities suffer from the crime and want things done. Hand-wringers in their gated communities are insulated from the reality.
I can see both sides of this. Repeatedly being stopped and searched whilst going about my lawful business would get intensely annoying, and should be avoided.
On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.
The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
That involves trusting the police’s judgment. Now look at Operation Midland and ask yourself if you want police with that level of judgment deciding whether to stop and search repeatedly your sons on their nights out.
It is worse than that. Suppose PC Dixon is quite right to stop and search young Winston. All by the book. Everyone is happy. Winston goes on his way.
Whatever it was about Winston that triggered that perfectly correct search is still there.
He will be stopped by every copper he meets on his way home from the table tennis tournament at the church youth club.
And half a dozen perfectly reasonable and entirely lawful searches later, Winston is just about ready to torch Scotland Yard.
I don't see why.
I went through a few months when I got pulled over by the Police for a breathalyser test on an almost weekly basis. Nothing suspicious or different with my driving, though I worked nights - and had done for years - but kept getting checked then going on my way.
Never made me want to be aggressive with the Police. I'd rather be inconvenienced with a breathalyser than in a collision with a drunk.
My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.
Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise.
So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.
On the latest Yougov on UNS the Tories gain 31 seats from Labour and only lose 14 to the LDs and 5 to the SNP
Tactical voting is pretty much defined as not voting according to the UNS.
My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.
Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise.
So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.
On the latest Yougov on UNS the Tories gain 31 seats from Labour and only lose 14 to the LDs and 5 to the SNP
Tactical voting is pretty much defined as not voting according to the UNS.
The loss of 14 seats to the Lib Dems is VERY closely matching to the Brecon and Radnor swing result btw.
That’s because the sentencing guidelines already say that people convicted of offences of violence or serious sexual offences should not be released unless they are judged no longer a danger to the public. So the PM is restating what is currently the law or perhaps he does not understand what the current law or, possibly, he’s just doing some PR bollocks to disguise the fact that he’s not actually doing the stuff that needs to be done to make sure the criminal justice system works as effectively as it should.
He is saying that 'yer criminals' should be banged up for longer. Less of this parole and early release nonsense, that's for softies. Let em rot in there.
Alf Garnett lives.
Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
My instinct is that the Conservatives would lose further seats in London to Labour, and some surprising big swings in the Home Counties would lead it losing a number of safe seats to the LDs.
Meanwhile, only a handful of gains in the Midlands and the North would materialise.
So, i could see Boris on 250-260 seats and LoTO in rather short order.
On the latest Yougov on UNS the Tories gain 31 seats from Labour and only lose 14 to the LDs and 5 to the SNP
Tactical voting is pretty much defined as not voting according to the UNS.
It's generally code for voting Labour ! I've voted tactically myself though in the past, but I'm under no illusion that a specifically anti-Corbyn tactical vote is small beer compared to the mahoosive Lib-Lab general soft voter pact that comes out at election time.
Comments
If they wanted to squeak to 2022 they needed to pass the deal, oust May then give the new leader time to rebuild and hope to gods the DUP or indys could be bought off to give time.
I'll stick with 'scum'.
It's been a small, but meaningful, boost to the UK economy.
As the term originally came from America, it seems incredible that people can use such a term to strop about people who are complaining about very real societal issues.
IMV some complaints about societal issues go too far. In which case you argue against them or just point and laugh. 'Woke' and 'wokeness' are hideous terms designed to allow people just to put their fingers in their ears and go na-na-na-na..
As an example, see this post from the often interesting Unwanted Blog:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=40995
Story, story, story...
"And then I woke up."
If it bothers you that much, I'll desist, but I'm a bit surprised. Just thought it a handy term for those who are achingly right-on whilst at the same time hypocritical.
I would reckon it would be ERM times a few.
I don’t think so.
Oh, you mean us? Well that's a different matter...
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wokeflake
You might also want to consider what positions might have been seen as being 'woke' 20 or 30 years ago - say female priests in the CoE or gay marriage rights - which are now generally seen as being unremarkable.
And I'm a cereal offender when it comes to that kind of thing.
A hideous word that is a combination of two hideous terms.
god knows how people with four or more kids manage ...
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=alt-right
Woke-
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woke
Sticking Patel into bat there was a deeply clever move - she'll make Labour look very soft on crime.
On the other hand, we do have a significant problem with knife and other crimes, and stop and search is probably a helpful tool to reduce it.
The question is how to get the benefits of the latter whilst reducing the former.
Legalise and liberalise consensual crimes. Legalise prostitution [actually this isn't technically illegal anyway in this country, just advertising it is, end that ban], legalise drugs. I used to just think cannabis should be legalised, but I'd legalise, tax and regulate the lot of them now - if someone wants to buy cocaine I'd rather they do so over the counter at Boots after showing ID to show they're an adult than from a knife-wielding criminal who doesn't give a s##t. The war on drugs is lost.
Be tougher on violent and serial criminals. People who commit GBH shouldn't serve just a few weeks in prison before they're released to do it again.
Fewer crimes, stricter enforcement of the crimes we do have.
That will discourage racial profiling or searches without the Police having good reason.
Hopefully it will be just marginal like in 2016 (sorry if I trigger @TOPPING )
Oh how I miss my Silly Samuel.
THEM! isalways unspecified, of course...
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1159711876965683200
Like a lot of things, there are a lot of variable.
Here are three things that might exert upwards pressure:
1. If the pound weakens, it will increase inflation because a lot of what people spend their money on is imported. However, this impact will be less than you might expect on imported goods. Simply, Tesco's costs - such as rent and staff - don't increase as the pound falls.
2. The government's current spending plans will probably have an impact. Simply, if the government deliberately runs a growing deficit, it will do so without the productive capacity of the British economy having increased (in the short term), and therefore any government deficit is likely to result in a greater trade deficit and higher prices.
3. It may raise wages for employers, especially if net migration were to turn negative. That would certainly flow through into higher prices over time. However, it's also possible that an economic slowdown means that this is completely mitigated.
And here's two that might exert downward pressure:
1. Less money flowing in from abroad to buy properties in London. If a Russian oligarch (or Chinese businessman or whoever) buys a £20m apartment in Mayfair, that has exactly the same impact on the British economy as the government spending £20m more than it earns through taxes.
2. Following on fron this, there is an inevitable degree of correlation between housing costs and inflation generally. Part is explicit (implied rent is part of the calculations), part is a consequence of how money flows around the economy. Lower demand for housing, meaning lower prices, will result in higher savings rates (and therefore lower aggregate demand and inflation).
Or are we just going to throw people into prison without trial?
https://amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006LLOCII/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o07?ie=UTF8&psc=1
(don't be put off by the publisher); and
https://amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006654U9U/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o08?ie=UTF8&psc=1
If an officer has a reasonable suspicion they will be able to do this, but it will be on their own heads that they chose to do it. Officers should be free to use their own sense, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't use sense!
Put less crimes in front of the courts but allow the courts to give better service and better judgement on the crimes that it does deal with.
Ah, yes, those two titans of world trade expertise exchanging views on tariffs.
We are lucky to have them.
Enough to affect peoples' votes is different.
So if I call you 'woke', a suitable response would be to shrug and go, "Not so sure about that, but I do my best." Perhaps with a self-deprecating grin.
But please note that it does NOT imply any other great qualities. You can be woke and yet an utter plonker, and you can be a terrific guy/gal who is not at all woke.
Also important is that the condition of wokeness is a destination and the journey is one way. Thus if you are not woke, you can awake and become so. But once woke, that is it, you will never revert to not being. You will be woke until the grave.
Which makes sense if you think about it. Once a person sheds their ignorance and/or relaxed tolerance of racism they will not (and will not want to) rediscover it. It would be like deliberately wearing your old over-sized clothes after successfully losing three stones.
Whatever it was about Winston that triggered that perfectly correct search is still there.
He will be stopped by every copper he meets on his way home from the table tennis tournament at the church youth club.
And half a dozen perfectly reasonable and entirely lawful searches later, Winston is just about ready to torch Scotland Yard.
I was once stopped and searched, they took away my new mobile and threw me in the cells before realeasing me just before midnight.
I wish that was my only interactions with the cops over the last decade.
I went through a few months when I got pulled over by the Police for a breathalyser test on an almost weekly basis. Nothing suspicious or different with my driving, though I worked nights - and had done for years - but kept getting checked then going on my way.
Never made me want to be aggressive with the Police. I'd rather be inconvenienced with a breathalyser than in a collision with a drunk.
Might be something to work off.
Alf Garnett lives.
Wonder if Alf would be up for some No Deal? Sense he would.
like Obama or god help us George W Bush were just brilliant at all such issues
Johnson will own it for good or bad.