On the subject of Vanilla, why can't I see comments on my phone now and nowhere to login either that I can find? Just the headers (I can only see these now when at my desk and on a PC)
Oh dear. The comment section of PB is still unreadable and unusable when deep threads are displayed instead of being collapsed with a "show previous comments" option. It's a pity at this crucial political juncture but I won't be returning till it's sorted. TTFN
Sometimes, even when you're a simple little oik like me you know right from wrong and theres a lot of fecking wrong being posted in the name of 'explaining' labour, anti semitism and the jewish community reaction to it. I wonder if labour genuinely dont realise how racist and infested they are. Then I remember words and deeds.
Oh dear. The comment section of PB is still unreadable and unusable when deep threads are displayed instead of being collapsed with a "show previous comments" option.
Time to resurrect the ancient lost art of trimming
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to end thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was good of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to perpetuate thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was bad of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Yes I have already said I think humanity for thousands and thousands of years engaging in the slave trade was bad. The fact it always occured for thousands of years means I doubt there is a single person on the entire planet who doesn't have an ancestor who engaged in the slave trade.
A history of slavery occuring within humanity is something we all share. Every single human, black or white, western or eastern, poor or rich. For thousands and thousands of years humans traded slaves. That was bad.
Its ending is what is remarkable, not that it occured. That is what is unique. That is what is good.
I agree. Let's celebrate that the scourge was ended.
But let's not glorify *our society* for having ended it's horrific practice (the fruits of which it still hugely benefits from, til this day).
I think that's as close to the middle as we can reach.
We both agree to celebrate that the scourge was ended. I want us to remember and be please that we were the ones who ended the scourge, you don't, but lets just celebrate that the scourge was ended either way.
A proper reading of history needs to be able to see the good and the bad.
"How do you tell the difference between an antisemite and a relentless, monotonous, irrational denier, mitigator and defender of antisemitism?"
"I don't know. How do you tell the difference between an antisemite and a relentless, monotonous, irrational denier, mitigator and defender of antisemitism?"
You don't seem able to take the most basic steps to ensure you know what you are talking about.
You do realise you've just illustrated what was said in the comment you replied to: "Every time someone dares question why it's anti-semitic, it's not answered."?
Why not answer it?
I have shown that he hasn't the first idea what he is talking about (over the freemasonry point). But read this, if you are really in doubt (and I would bet the farm you aren't)
And if you still disagree take it up with Corbyn. He says it's antisemitic. Why would he say that?
"I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." Jeremy Corbyn
So apparently the mural's anti-Semitic because people say it is, and then other people are compelled to say it is (eg Corbyn).
For questioning all this, I'm now also an 'anti-Semite'.
This is a dystopian Emperor's New Clothes scenario. Quite scary.
@Ishmael_Z made one good point about the connection some anti-Semites use to try and tar Jews with the hostility towards Freemasons.
However, still no explanation why the mural is anti-semitic.
Yes, Corbyn now believes the mural is anti-Semitic. That doesn't answer the question at all.
I think Mysticrose was suggesting that the Jews have only themselves to blame, Decide for yourself:
Mysticrose said: The 'Jewish Community' would do far better to put a sock in it. They're going to get the rest pretty peed off if they keep up this hysteria.
Mysticrose said: But the real problem is that if you use hyperbole to the point where you are making your community into a 'special case' or a 'special people' then you are playing straight into the racists' hands. We are apparently all nowadays banned from mentioning what happened, thanks to Godwin and his unthinking acolytes, but singling out any people as special is precisely the start of the trouble. And Jewish people need to be extremely careful on this score. There is racism across the board in the UK, some of it undoubtedly due to Brexit. Jewish thinkers and speakers would do well to set their complaints in that context.
Mysticrose said: See, I have to say that until the 'Jewish Community' began all this ranting I was sympathetic to what they were saying and very upset with the anti-semitism in Labour. What they're actually achieving is to turn me totally against them and making begin to re-think my views on subjects like Jewish agendas and Israel. They should belt up. If they want to talk about anti-semitism, talk about the whole of racism.
On polls, I'd think the MRP from the governors tomorrow plus this weekend's tranche should give us a good steer on where to pitch seat bets etc as absent a very black swan I cant see much more than MoE movement in the last 10 days
Worth considering the below if small margins come into play
In 2010 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 7 seats In 2015 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 6 seats In 2017 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 8 seats In 2017 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory WILL gain them 15 seats
So even a mere 1% swing could gain the Tories a tiny majority
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to end thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was good of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to perpetuate thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was bad of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Yes I have already said I think humanity for thousands and thousands of years engaging in the slave trade was bad. The fact it always occured for thousands of years means I doubt there is a single person on the entire planet who doesn't have an ancestor who engaged in the slave trade.
A history of slavery occuring within humanity is something we all share. Every single human, black or white, western or eastern, poor or rich. For thousands and thousands of years humans traded slaves. That was bad.
Its ending is what is remarkable, not that it occured. That is what is unique. That is what is good.
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to end thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was good of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to perpetuate thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was bad of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Yes I have already said I think humanity for thousands and thousands of years engaging in the slave trade was bad. The fact it always occured for thousands of years means I doubt there is a single person on the entire planet who doesn't have an ancestor who engaged in the slave trade.
A history of slavery occuring within humanity is something we all share. Every single human, black or white, western or eastern, poor or rich. For thousands and thousands of years humans traded slaves. That was bad.
Its ending is what is remarkable, not that it occured. That is what is unique. That is what is good.
I agree. Let's celebrate that the scourge was ended.
But let's not glorify *our society* for having ended it's horrific practice (the fruits of which it still hugely benefits from, til this day).
I think that's as close to the middle as we can reach.
We both agree to celebrate that the scourge was ended. I want us to remember and be please that we were the ones who ended the scourge, you don't, but lets just celebrate that the scourge was ended either way.
A proper reading of history needs to be able to see the good and the bad.
So see some of the bad then!
I do. Slavery was bad, I have never disputed that. It was a scourge upon humanity for thousands of years.
Some people want to dispute the significance of ending the scourge of slavery.
"How do you tell the difference between an antisemite and a relentless, monotonous, irrational denier, mitigator and defender of antisemitism?"
"I don't know. How do you tell the difference between an antisemite and a relentless, monotonous, irrational denier, mitigator and defender of antisemitism?"
You don't seem able to take the most basic steps to ensure you know what you are talking about.
You do realise you've just illustrated what was said in the comment you replied to: "Every time someone dares question why it's anti-semitic, it's not answered."?
Why not answer it?
I have shown that he hasn't the first idea what he is talking about (over the freemasonry point). But read this, if you are really in doubt (and I would bet the farm you aren't)
And if you still disagree take it up with Corbyn. He says it's antisemitic. Why would he say that?
"I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic." Jeremy Corbyn
So apparently the mural's anti-Semitic because people say it is, and then other people are compelled to say it is (eg Corbyn).
For questioning all this, I'm now also an 'anti-Semite'.
This is a dystopian Emperor's New Clothes scenario. Quite scary.
@Ishmael_Z made one good point about the connection some anti-Semites use to try and tar Jews with the hostility towards Freemasons.
However, still no explanation why the mural is anti-semitic.
Yes, Corbyn now believes the mural is anti-Semitic. That doesn't answer the question at all.
P.s. you assume that I'm male!
WTF? You've still not seen an explanation? There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
We should glorify the cessation of an appalling act. I am glad that the Nazis were defeated.
We should ALSO be ashamed of humanity that for thousands and thousands of years slavery was considered normal. We helped end that, that is good.
Name any world power ever prior to the British Empire that is comparable to the British Empire that had either abolished slavery or had a better record than us on slavery.
I would agree that we should celebrate the cessation.
It might seem a trifling distinction, but I would suggest its important.
Celebrating the cessation of the act, and what that means, is useful. Glorifying [a society] for having ended an appalling act is quite different.
Whether or not other world powers did the same as the British Empire to abolish slavery is not relevant to that point.
It is entirely relevant.
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to end thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was good of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Do you specifically have ancestors that did this?
Probably. Collectively our ancestors as Brits did that.
I've not traced back my ancestry 4 centuries. Going back 4 centuries we have an estimated 65,536 ancestors in that generation so certainly one or more of them could have been involved.
65,536 you say? So you think in 16 generations not a single one of your ancestors was the result of distant cousins getting together? I think your maths is as dodgy as your history.
I said estimated. Of course not all were unique, nor were all generations exactly 20 years, many would have been more and many would have been less.
So you're saying 65,536 is a remarkably precise estimate that just happens to be 2 to the 16? I would estimate the number of unique ancestors to be much smaller 400 years ago, 4 figures rather than 5.
But I'm also wondering what ancestors were fighting (and dying) to end the slave trade 400 years ago? I see that Peter the Great abolished slavery in 1723, but I don't know if that involved much fighting or dying, and was in Russia, and wasn't specifically about the slave trade, so I'm a bit confused.
We should glorify the cessation of an appalling act. I am glad that the Nazis were defeated.
We should ALSO be ashamed of humanity that for thousands and thousands of years slavery was considered normal. We helped end that, that is good.
Name any world power ever prior to the British Empire that is comparable to the British Empire that had either abolished slavery or had a better record than us on slavery.
I would agree that we should celebrate the cessation.
It might seem a trifling distinction, but I would suggest its important.
Celebrating the cessation of the act, and what that means, is useful. Glorifying [a society] for having ended an appalling act is quite different.
Whether or not other world powers did the same as the British Empire to abolish slavery is not relevant to that point.
It is entirely relevant.
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to end thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was good of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Do you specifically have ancestors that did this?
Probably. Collectively our ancestors as Brits did that.
I've not traced back my ancestry 4 centuries. Going back 4 centuries we have an estimated 65,536 ancestors in that generation so certainly one or more of them could have been involved.
65,536 you say? So you think in 16 generations not a single one of your ancestors was the result of distant cousins getting together? I think your maths is as dodgy as your history.
I said estimated. Of course not all were unique, nor were all generations exactly 20 years, many would have been more and many would have been less.
So you're saying 65,536 is a remarkably precise estimate that just happens to be 2 to the 16? I would estimate the number of unique ancestors to be much smaller 400 years ago, 4 figures rather than 5.
But I'm also wondering what ancestors were fighting (and dying) to end the slave trade 400 years ago? I see that Peter the Great abolished slavery in 1723, but I don't know if that involved much fighting or dying, and was in Russia, and wasn't specifically about the slave trade, so I'm a bit confused.
Since when did estimate mean "remarkably precise estimate"?
We should glorify the cessation of an appalling act. I am glad that the Nazis were defeated.
We should ALSO be ashamed of humanity that for thousands and thousands of years slavery was considered normal. We helped end that, that is good.
Name any world power ever prior to the British Empire that is comparable to the British Empire that had either abolished slavery or had a better record than us on slavery.
I would agree that we should celebrate the cessation.
It might seem a trifling distinction, but I would suggest its important.
Celebrating the cessation of the act, and what that means, is useful. Glorifying [a society] for having ended an appalling act is quite different.
Whether or not other world powers did the same as the British Empire to abolish slavery is not relevant to that point.
It is entirely relevant.
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to end thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was good of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Do you specifically have ancestors that did this?
Probably. Collectively our ancestors as Brits did that.
I've not traced back my ancestry 4 centuries. Going back 4 centuries we have an estimated 65,536 ancestors in that generation so certainly one or more of them could have been involved.
65,536 you say? So you think in 16 generations not a single one of your ancestors was the result of distant cousins getting together? I think your maths is as dodgy as your history.
I said estimated. Of course not all were unique, nor were all generations exactly 20 years, many would have been more and many would have been less.
So you're saying 65,536 is a remarkably precise estimate that just happens to be 2 to the 16? I would estimate the number of unique ancestors to be much smaller 400 years ago, 4 figures rather than 5.
But I'm also wondering what ancestors were fighting (and dying) to end the slave trade 400 years ago? I see that Peter the Great abolished slavery in 1723, but I don't know if that involved much fighting or dying, and was in Russia, and wasn't specifically about the slave trade, so I'm a bit confused.
Since when did estimate mean "remarkably precise estimate"?
I never said anything about precise. 🤦♂️
maybe when in a hole stop digging? 65,00 would be an estimate 65,536 is a precise estimate
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to end thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was good of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Our brave ancestors fought and some lost their lives to perpetuate thousands of years of slave trade. I think that was bad of our ancestors to do - don't you?
Yes I have already said I think humanity for thousands and thousands of years engaging in the slave trade was bad. The fact it always occured for thousands of years means I doubt there is a single person on the entire planet who doesn't have an ancestor who engaged in the slave trade.
A history of slavery occuring within humanity is something we all share. Every single human, black or white, western or eastern, poor or rich. For thousands and thousands of years humans traded slaves. That was bad.
Its ending is what is remarkable, not that it occured. That is what is unique. That is what is good.
I don't think it is ended on a global view.
On an historical level of slavery openly existing with people in chains etc it is.
On an underground modern slavery level it most definitely is not and that is the modern day scourge we need to be concentrating on tackling rather than arguing about actions 5 centuries ago.
Worth considering the below if small margins come into play
In 2010 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 7 seats In 2015 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 6 seats In 2017 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 8 seats In 2017 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory WILL gain them 15 seats
So even a mere 1% swing could gain the Tories a tiny majority
Surely it depends which seats and votes that 1% swing represents.
A 1% swing focussed on safe Tory seats gives them nothing, a national 1% swing centered on 20 close marginals gives them the lot.
I really don't think we will know the end result here until actual seats get announced.
This election is certainly turning weird. Philip Thompson now eulogising over our glorious contribution to the slave trade.
You accidentally missed a word.
I am eulogising over our glorious contribution to abolishing the slave trade.
Is that like the glory of a terrorist kidnapper releasing remaining hostages (having tortured them, and killed the others)?
A better move, yes. Better fortune for those who no longer have to suffer, yes.
But it's hard for one to see glory in ceasing to incarcerate, murder, and abuse humans (in this case for the earlier financial gain for an empire that still leaves many legacies, including a substantial element of the framework for control of land, human, and natural resources today).
Because you are a fool who is looking from today's standards.
Historically slavery was normal. Its in the Bible, its in every power historically. That the UK abolished it is absolutely unprecedented and remarkable. We only view slavery as being odd now precisely BECAUSE it was abolished by our predecessors, had we been born hundreds or thousands of years ago it would have been normal.
"absolutely unprecedented" is absolutely wrong. plenty of countries abolished slavery before Britain.
Name one country that abolished the slave trade before us. Not just within their country but using their power to prevent other nations from trading slaves too.
Interestingly, Wikipedia says that 'Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, but Napoleon revoked that decree in 1802. In 1815, the Republic abolished the slave trade but the decree did not come into effect until 1826. France re-abolished slavery in her colonies in 1848 with a general and unconditional emancipation.'
Haiti ended the slave trade almost 30 years before England, and it led to France ending the practice.
Since when did estimate mean "remarkably precise estimate"?
I never said anything about precise. 🤦♂️
maybe when in a hole stop digging? 65,00 would be an estimate 65,536 is a precise estimate
No it is simple 2^16 starting point estimate based on 2 per 20 years going back 400 years. It was never meant to be precise and 65,000 is no more or less precise or rounded than 2^16. Both are round numbers, just one to base 2 and one to base 10.
But that's just a number it was never meant to be precise. Many generations were below 20 years which will increase the number, many were over 20 years which will reduce it and many ancestors will be repeated which will make our number of unique ancestors lower.
I hope things have calmed down since last night's display of intolerance, anger and bitterness which was very depressing
On the recent polls, including Kantar, labour do seem to have ticked up a couple of points and the conservatives seem to be settling above 40%. I think the waspi bribe has helped labour but to close the circa 11 point gap they are going to need to depress the lib dem vote and attract some conservatives which is unlikely
I have never subscribed to the landslide theory as there are too many moving parts but a small conservative majority may be the end result, but equally a hung parliament with Boris having to face the decision of accepting a referendum to remain in power and keep Corbyn out
'O what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive' Sir Walter Scott 1808
Good Morning Big G.
It didn't calm down. I've seen jaw dropping justifications for antisemitism, not least that the Jews are to blame for anti-semitism by way of their special pleading. Shocking. To your point about the Boris minority: Surely the days of any party cooperating with the tories are over?
Did someone on here really say that?
Mysticrose did and justified it on the basis they spent lots of time with jews and we should totes listen to them on this
Actually I posted a very astute, thoroughly informed and intellectually compelling, reason why the 'Jewish community' need to tread very cautiously.
If you want to engage with this on the same level, go back to what I posted this morning and join me. Otherwise, your comments are water off my back.
This member of the 'Jewish community' read that as a threat, couched in ignorance. I think you need to work on your race relations.
In the past I have found Libdem canvass rumours to be the most honest and accurate. Listen to what they are saying and not saying.
They are saying they are doing very well in London, I.e they did *not* add the rest of the south to that rumour. Indeed Swinson admits the Tories will have a majority.
Therefore I take it canvassing in the shires is not going too well for the libdems.
5 visitors (nurse/carers) so far 1 already Lab 2 were staying at home 2 were voting TORY.
Now 5 Lab votes
projections ranging from 9k for a 1959 lady to £28k for a 1954 lady (who before today was a Corbyn hater) Now she is taking the money.
Its disgraceful really
How did you come across these people?
Did you read BJO's message - they are nurses / carers coming in to check on / look after his wife from memory.
The sad thing about labour's bribe/deception is that a majority labour government would need to be elected and even then it would be illegal and subject to judicial review if the Supreme Court reaffirms the waspi's do not have a case
However, to be fair to BJO he condemns the offer.
The position would of course have to be addressed by the government of the day if the Supreme Court rules in the waspi's favour
In the past I have found Libdem canvass rumours to be the most honest and accurate. Listen to what they are saying and not saying.
They are saying they are doing very well in London, I.e they did *not* add the rest of the south to that rumour. Indeed Swinson admits the Tories will have a majority.
Therefore I take it canvassing in the shires is not going too well for the libdems.
They clearly fancy Esher, they like Cities and forget Finchley, they never mention it. News on guildford has gone a little quiet and I've nor heard anything on the likes of southport. I wonder if they are just going to pile all in on inner and sw London?
The waspi thing is perfectly rational. Offer me £30k in folding money to vote Labour and I’d think about it seriously (not least because I have quite a lot of time for more than half the manifesto). I’d like to think I wouldn’t do it because comments on this very forum are showing how many of their supporters are racist and unpleasant, but I couldn’t swear to that.
If it starts to look like the difference between victory and defeat, maybe Boris will have to buy them off too. It’s worth almost anything to keep Corbyn and his hateful chums out of Downing Street.
Worth considering the below if small margins come into play
In 2010 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 7 seats In 2015 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 6 seats In 2017 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 8 seats In 2017 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory WILL gain them 15 seats
So even a mere 1% swing could gain the Tories a tiny majority
Surely it depends which seats and votes that 1% swing represents.
A 1% swing focussed on safe Tory seats gives them nothing, a national 1% swing centered on 20 close marginals gives them the lot.
I really don't think we will know the end result here until actual seats get announced.
Very true, but if the Tories get their campaigning correct there are plenty of seats in play and more routes to a majority than previous years. Obviously winning back the seats they lost in 2017 would be one way!
The uber rabbis intervention will likely most impact undecideds
Lead story on the BBC this morning. But TBH for all the reasons I gave last night - and Labour's supporters graphically demonstrated on the last thread and again on this one - it isn't likely to have much effect on anyone. Anyone considering voting for Corbyn simply doesn't care about his record on race relations.
Or they think it's still better than Johnson's and the Tories' record. Has Corbyn ever personally used racist language? And then refused to even acknowledge it was wrong? Has Corbyn ever promised an inquiry into racism in his party and then backtracked on that promise? Which party receives more votes from minority groups? I know many BAME friends who would never vote Tory because of their record on racism. Nobody is happy about the anti-Semitism issue in Labour, but I think it's a mistake for religious leaders to insert themselves into the political debate, especially during an election. It demeans their office and opens them up to accusations of bias.
Heaven forbid people suffering racial abuse show any bias about it.
I think a senior religious leader has a different kind of role and should stay above party politics. The last thing we need in this country is religion infecting politics.
Given that the main opposition party is being formally investigated for institutional anti-semitism and on the day that that same party is bringing out a race and religion manifesto, I’d say that religion is already infecting politics, wouldn’t you. More generally, back in 1942 a British civil servant wrote, about the reports the British government was receiving about German persecution of Jews, that nothing of the kind was happening; this was all “hysteria” by “wailing Jews”. To read some of the posts in the previous thread, some by posters who don’t even live here, is to read a repeat of that civil servant’s mindset. Any concerns by Jews are apparently unreal, hysterical, not put in context or no worse than what others suffer. Or worse they lead to some rethinking their views about Jews and their “agenda”; complaints by Jews are the reason why some people are anti-Jewish - if only they would be quiet no-one would hate them. The idea that the fears might be real, that some understanding of why they exist, some empathy with people who have good reason for feeling concerned when a long-standing prejudice is revived might be worthwhile seems wholly foreign to these posters. It is a dismal sight, to say the least. Some people really do need take a good long hard look at themselves.
This election is certainly turning weird. Philip Thompson now eulogising over our glorious contribution to the slave trade.
You accidentally missed a word.
I am eulogising over our glorious contribution to abolishing the slave trade.
Is that like the glory of a terrorist kidnapper releasing remaining hostages (having tortured them, and killed the others)?
A better move, yes. Better fortune for those who no longer have to suffer, yes.
But it's hard for one to see glory in ceasing to incarcerate, murder, and abuse humans (in this case for the earlier financial gain for an empire that still leaves many legacies, including a substantial element of the framework for control of land, human, and natural resources today).
Because you are a fool who is looking from today's standards.
Historically slavery was normal. Its in the Bible, its in every power historically. That the UK abolished it is absolutely unprecedented and remarkable. We only view slavery as being odd now precisely BECAUSE it was abolished by our predecessors, had we been born hundreds or thousands of years ago it would have been normal.
"absolutely unprecedented" is absolutely wrong. plenty of countries abolished slavery before Britain.
Name one country that abolished the slave trade before us. Not just within their country but using their power to prevent other nations from trading slaves too.
Interestingly, Wikipedia says that 'Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, but Napoleon revoked that decree in 1802. In 1815, the Republic abolished the slave trade but the decree did not come into effect until 1826. France re-abolished slavery in her colonies in 1848 with a general and unconditional emancipation.'
Haiti ended the slave trade almost 30 years before England, and it led to France ending the practice.
The Normans abolished it in 1100. The British Empire was a Johnny-come-lately on this one....
Do we know if the Waspi bribe is taxable or not? The state pension is of course.
If this was the result of a court case, I believe they would be compensated for the position they would have been in after tax, so no. Depends what Labour is actually saying.
Quick calc. If the WASPis all decamped to team communist to line their sad old pockets I make it about a 2 to 3% swing in VI?
For which you need to offset 60s women saying fuck that and going the other way in disgust
It's curious that on student loans the Labour policy is to change the policy for the future but not those who have already racked up the debt (of course, Labour may be saving that announcement for later). But on WASPI they are just going to bung those years who claim they have lost out (rather than promising to reduce the female age of retirement back to 60).
Quick calc. If the WASPis all decamped to team communist to line their sad old pockets I make it about a 2 to 3% swing in VI?
For which you need to offset 60s women saying fuck that and going the other way in disgust
It's curious that on student loans the Labour policy is to change the policy for the future but not those who have already racked up the debt (of course, Labour may be saving that announcement for later). But on WASPI they are just going to bung those years who claim they have lost out (rather than promising to reduce the female age of retirement back to 60).
Thinking about it, if you’re the Tory party then the best defence with this group is probably around inheritance tax, I guess.
Your efforts will swing it, I'm sure. Unless you're less Trevor Brooking and more Carlton Cole?
I fear the latter could be more the case. Still, if Tulip hangs on I'll be claiming it. And if she doesn't - well let's not go there.
Studying the 2015 and 2017 results, she appears to have won over a substantial number of former blues, which wasn't really in line with national trends.
My figures suggest a Labour hold, partly because of the swings required, but mainly due to the effect of the camel-forename-recognition-modifier(c).
Your on the ground anecdata is much appreciated though. Give it a week before you unleash KK.
Do we know if the Waspi bribe is taxable or not? The state pension is of course.
Surely, the court case will now go to completion.
What happens if the courts find the WASPI were not treated unfairly?
Can the Govt of the day simply ignore that and pay money out anyhow?
The Government can give random sums of cash to anyone if it legislates according and protects itself from JR. It can decide to give anyone with a yellow hat £30k if it wants.
Less than half of Labour leavers who voted Labour in 2017 will even consider voting for them again in 2019.
Yougov estimated 3.5m leave voters voted Labour in 2017, so that is looking like 2 million lost voters right there with over 1 million of them switching to the Tories. That neutral stance could really hurt them.
The Tories are clearly in a blind panic over the WASPI payment. What to do? Boris needs to address the nation. Have an election broadcast in which he informs these ladies - in a slow, clear voice so they can't fail to grasp his gist - that money doesn't grow on trees.
I am begining to wonder about Esher and Walton, which I had considered a safe Conservative hold even with the remain led swing in Surrey. I understand the story from last night (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50553055) about Raab excluding the Dunn family from a meeting, leaving them outside in the cold and then fleeing after the meeting, is already being used against him. It should be an easy hold, but Raab is rapidly getting a pariah personal reputation only seen previously in the cases of Portillo and Balls.
Do we know if the Waspi bribe is taxable or not? The state pension is of course.
Surely, the court case will now go to completion.
What happens if the courts find the WASPI were not treated unfairly?
Can the Govt of the day simply ignore that and pay money out anyhow?
The Government can give random sums of cash to anyone if it legislates according and protects itself from JR. It can decide to give anyone with a yellow hat £30k if it wants.
I think the cost McDonnell mentions must be the net cost to the taxpayer.
If it's taxable the amount paid out will be higher but some will flow back to the Exchequer; if it's not then it's simply the amount paid.
Whether it is taxable or not I think would prove quite a difficult question. Compensation is not generally taxable, but compensation for lost income is.
1. Go hard against it - 58 billion pound black hole, stealing from the young, etc.
2. Ignore it - the less said, the better.
3. Wait for the weekend polls, and if it's costing the Tories several points, just make a pledge to match Labour's offer on Monday? The problem with this is that copying Labour is poor optics, but on the other it seems the public is easily bribed, so why not?
Am I right in remembering that the Tory manifesto leaves 70-80 billion of "investment" money promised, but unspecified? That would easily supply the Magic Wasp Money!
Do we know if the Waspi bribe is taxable or not? The state pension is of course.
Surely, the court case will now go to completion.
What happens if the courts find the WASPI were not treated unfairly?
Can the Govt of the day simply ignore that and pay money out anyhow?
The Government can give random sums of cash to anyone if it legislates according and protects itself from JR. It can decide to give anyone with a yellow hat £30k if it wants.
I think the cost McDonnell mentions must be the net cost to the taxpayer.
If it's taxable the amount paid out will be higher but some will flow back to the Exchequer; if it's not then it's simply the amount paid.
Whether it is taxable or not I think would prove quite a difficult question. Compensation is not generally taxable, but compensation for lost income is.
Yes I thought the usual thing, were this a lost court case, would be for them to be put back where they would have been, which would mean less any tax they would have paid in their own circumstances, and at that stage it would be tax free?
Since when did estimate mean "remarkably precise estimate"?
I never said anything about precise. 🤦♂️
maybe when in a hole stop digging? 65,00 would be an estimate 65,536 is a precise estimate
No it is simple 2^16 starting point estimate based on 2 per 20 years going back 400 years. It was never meant to be precise and 65,000 is no more or less precise or rounded than 2^16. Both are round numbers, just one to base 2 and one to base 10.
But that's just a number it was never meant to be precise. Many generations were below 20 years which will increase the number, many were over 20 years which will reduce it and many ancestors will be repeated which will make our number of unique ancestors lower.
I think it's very much an upper bound.
The standard period for a human generation is normally quoted as 30 years. Worth noting that people didn't generally start reproducing immediately when fertile. Even among peasants marriage was often delayed until the family could set up a son with enough land to support himself and his own family.
More importantly, people didn't move around as much, so once you go back a few generations there will be a lot of duplicate ancestors. My mother has found a lot of dynastic intermarriage in our family history of modest farmers. Accounting for this pedigree collapse mathematically is complicated, but the effect naturally grows with the number of generations.
As an aside, while it's fair to say that all people with European ancestry are probably descended from Charlemagne, or indeed a more recent individual, the way in which DNA is divided for inheritance means that very few people will have any DNA sourced directly from him
That's not to say that I disagree with your point. Though some contemporary individuals will have benefited from an inheritance derived from the slave trade more than others, the benefit to the country as a whole is considerable, and something for which we bear a collective responsibility.
1. Go hard against it - 58 billion pound black hole, stealing from the young, etc.
2. Ignore it - the less said, the better.
3. Wait for the weekend polls, and if it's costing the Tories several points, just make a pledge to match Labour's offer on Monday? The problem with this is that copying Labour is poor optics, but on the other it seems the public is easily bribed, so why not?
Am I right in remembering that the Tory manifesto leaves 70-80 billion of "investment" money promised, but unspecified? That would easily supply the Magic Wasp Money!
If I was the Tory party I think I’d push the facts on exactly who benefits and by how much, put it in a national context (more than we spend on defence) and try a “fairness” narrative. I’d basically push t he idea ty at everyone else will pay for it - it’s not in the Labour manifesto so implies new taxes.
The British were the first and only group to industrialise it for the exclusive benefit of a small capital owning class.
Bullshit.
The French, Spanish, Portugese, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, Mongols, Mesopotamians and more never did that did they? I suppose you believe aliens rather than slaves built the Pyramids do you? 👽
Every single power before us used slavery and they all industrialised it in their own methods for their own ruling and wealthy classes. The one thing that marks us out as exceptional is that at the peak of our powers we abolished slavery - no power before us had done that.
Point of order: it was actually France during the Revolution which first formally abolished slavery. Didn’t last long as this was reversed by Napoleon, I believe, and France did nothing effective to stop it.
I am begining to wonder about Esher and Walton, which I had considered a safe Conservative hold even with the remain led swing in Surrey. I understand the story from last night (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50553055) about Raab excluding the Dunn family from a meeting, leaving them outside in the cold and then fleeing after the meeting, is already being used against him. It should be an easy hold, but Raab is rapidly getting a pariah personal reputation only seen previously in the cases of Portillo and Balls.
I have no love of Raab and if he loses his seat I do not see him as a loss
Interesting that Boris is about to do a speech in Dunfermline just a few miles from Gordon Browns patch
1. Go hard against it - 58 billion pound black hole, stealing from the young, etc.
2. Ignore it - the less said, the better.
3. Wait for the weekend polls, and if it's costing the Tories several points, just make a pledge to match Labour's offer on Monday? The problem with this is that copying Labour is poor optics, but on the other it seems the public is easily bribed, so why not?
Am I right in remembering that the Tory manifesto leaves 70-80 billion of "investment" money promised, but unspecified? That would easily supply the Magic Wasp Money!
I don't think bungs to Waspi can really be considered capital infrastructure
5 visitors (nurse/carers) so far 1 already Lab 2 were staying at home 2 were voting TORY.
Now 5 Lab votes
projections ranging from 9k for a 1959 lady to £28k for a 1954 lady (who before today was a Corbyn hater) Now she is taking the money.
Its disgraceful really
Tories need to do something about this. And quick.
They really dont. 4 people who know Big John are not a basis for headless chickenry. Especially ones who go into extraordinary levels of detail as to their voting intention and personal finances
I wonder what would happen in Corbyn (or Swinson) decided to reverse the policy on over 75's TV licences. Might give Boris & Co a scare!
Why not just bung them all a million pounds each? It makes as much sense as any other Labour policy if individuals are prepared to bankrupt the country for their own gain.
I am begining to wonder about Esher and Walton, which I had considered a safe Conservative hold even with the remain led swing in Surrey. I understand the story from last night (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-50553055) about Raab excluding the Dunn family from a meeting, leaving them outside in the cold and then fleeing after the meeting, is already being used against him. It should be an easy hold, but Raab is rapidly getting a pariah personal reputation only seen previously in the cases of Portillo and Balls.
I have no love of Raab and if he loses his seat I do not see him as a loss
Interesting that Boris is about to do a speech in Dunfermline just a few miles from Gordon Browns patch
Dunfermline - home of the Paralytics. Good choice from Bozo.
@Philip_Thompson Priti is a liberal. The British Empire has a top top record on slavery. You certainly think (!) outside the box, I'll give you that.
If you can think what is more top top than abolition then I'd be happy to defer to that.
Imperial slavery ended mostly due to rebellions and economic reasons, not morality. Early in the slave rebellion era, England was willing to let France try to quell slave rebellions even whilst at war with each other (this changed later in war) Again, the Haitian rebellion and abolition of slavery was a turning point; the imperial powers saw an island of mostly slaves take control and beat back imperial might. If the abolition of slavery by Britain was due to moral understanding that treating humans that way was wrong, why was compensation from the government given to slave owners rather than slaves? Why was the empire in the 1820s and 30s putting down slave rebellions in the harshest way possible, if they were so close to enlightenment? Why did British controlled areas, such as Hong Kong and Sierra Leone, not abolish slavery into much later? Not to mention the main incentive post abolition was to cripple the French economy which still depended on the slave trade, giving sailors a per head bounty for each slave they took from the French, but not making sure that freed slaves were not immediately sold into slavery again.
My Aunt is a WASPI woman and has been putting lots in the past about it. I just thought to check her profile to see what if anything she has put about Labour's pledge up and absolutely nothing.
I remain hopeful that people are mature enough to see through a last minute attemped bung with no funding in despearation for votes.
1. Go hard against it - 58 billion pound black hole, stealing from the young, etc.
2. Ignore it - the less said, the better.
3. Wait for the weekend polls, and if it's costing the Tories several points, just make a pledge to match Labour's offer on Monday? The problem with this is that copying Labour is poor optics, but on the other it seems the public is easily bribed, so why not?
Am I right in remembering that the Tory manifesto leaves 70-80 billion of "investment" money promised, but unspecified? That would easily supply the Magic Wasp Money!
If I was the Tory party I think I’d push the facts on exactly who benefits and by how much, put it in a national context (more than we spend on defence) and try a “fairness” narrative. I’d basically push t he idea ty at everyone else will pay for it - it’s not in the Labour manifesto so implies new taxes.
Wont that highlight how much the Tories and the LDs stole?
1. Go hard against it - 58 billion pound black hole, stealing from the young, etc.
2. Ignore it - the less said, the better.
3. Wait for the weekend polls, and if it's costing the Tories several points, just make a pledge to match Labour's offer on Monday? The problem with this is that copying Labour is poor optics, but on the other it seems the public is easily bribed, so why not?
Am I right in remembering that the Tory manifesto leaves 70-80 billion of "investment" money promised, but unspecified? That would easily supply the Magic Wasp Money!
If I was the Tory party I think I’d push the facts on exactly who benefits and by how much, put it in a national context (more than we spend on defence) and try a “fairness” narrative. I’d basically push t he idea ty at everyone else will pay for it - it’s not in the Labour manifesto so implies new taxes.
Wont that highlight how much the Tories and the LDs stole?
This is as bad as steal your house 2017 fiasco
Couldn't your party move to another country and try to turn it into a bankrupt **** hole instead of ours?
This election is certainly turning weird. Philip Thompson now eulogising over our glorious contribution to the slave trade.
You accidentally missed a word.
I am eulogising over our glorious contribution to abolishing the slave trade.
Is that like the glory of a terrorist kidnapper releasing remaining hostages (having tortured them, and killed the others)?
A better move, yes. Better fortune for those who no longer have to suffer, yes.
But it's hard for one to see glory in ceasing to incarcerate, murder, and abuse humans (in this case for the earlier financial gain for an empire that still leaves many legacies, including a substantial element of the framework for control of land, human, and natural resources today).
Because you are a fool who is looking from today's standards.
Historically slavery was normal. Its in the Bible, its in every power historically. That the UK abolished it is absolutely unprecedented and remarkable. We only view slavery as being odd now precisely BECAUSE it was abolished by our predecessors, had we been born hundreds or thousands of years ago it would have been normal.
"absolutely unprecedented" is absolutely wrong. plenty of countries abolished slavery before Britain.
Name one country that abolished the slave trade before us. Not just within their country but using their power to prevent other nations from trading slaves too.
Interestingly, Wikipedia says that 'Slavery was first abolished by the French Republic in 1794, but Napoleon revoked that decree in 1802. In 1815, the Republic abolished the slave trade but the decree did not come into effect until 1826. France re-abolished slavery in her colonies in 1848 with a general and unconditional emancipation.'
Haiti ended the slave trade almost 30 years before England, and it led to France ending the practice.
The Normans abolished it in 1100. The British Empire was a Johnny-come-lately on this one....
And, after that (brutal) conquest, replaced it with the most bonded form of serfdom there is under overlordship of Ireland.
Do you know anything about the history of Ireland?
Views on the legacy of the British Empire in this country are rarely nuanced or accurate. They come down to whether you’re pro or anti British, which sets the battlelines, and the rest is confirmation bias.
1. Go hard against it - 58 billion pound black hole, stealing from the young, etc.
2. Ignore it - the less said, the better.
3. Wait for the weekend polls, and if it's costing the Tories several points, just make a pledge to match Labour's offer on Monday? The problem with this is that copying Labour is poor optics, but on the other it seems the public is easily bribed, so why not?
Am I right in remembering that the Tory manifesto leaves 70-80 billion of "investment" money promised, but unspecified? That would easily supply the Magic Wasp Money!
If I was the Tory party I think I’d push the facts on exactly who benefits and by how much, put it in a national context (more than we spend on defence) and try a “fairness” narrative. I’d basically push t he idea ty at everyone else will pay for it - it’s not in the Labour manifesto so implies new taxes.
Wont that highlight how much the Tories and the LDs stole?
This is as bad as steal your house 2017 fiasco
Couldn't your party move to another country and try to turn it into a bankrupt **** hole instead of ours?
BJO your earlier comment re WASPI were interesting. This could be a game changer for us reds. The women affected in their 50s and 60s will have a big influence on their households
Comments
It's a pity at this crucial political juncture but I won't be returning till it's sorted.
TTFN
I wonder if labour genuinely dont realise how racist and infested they are. Then I remember words and deeds.
https://kellnerpolitics.com/2019/11/26/a-conservative-landslide-is-possible-here-are-startling-poll-numbers-that-explain-why/
5 visitors (nurse/carers) so far 1 already Lab 2 were staying at home 2 were voting TORY.
Now 5 Lab votes
projections ranging from 9k for a 1959 lady to £28k for a 1954 lady (who before today was a Corbyn hater) Now she is taking the money.
Its disgraceful really
Decide for yourself:
Mysticrose said:
The 'Jewish Community' would do far better to put a sock in it. They're going to get the rest pretty peed off if they keep up this hysteria.
Mysticrose said:
But the real problem is that if you use hyperbole to the point where you are making your community into a 'special case' or a 'special people' then you are playing straight into the racists' hands. We are apparently all nowadays banned from mentioning what happened, thanks to Godwin and his unthinking acolytes, but singling out any people as special is precisely the start of the trouble. And Jewish people need to be extremely careful on this score.
There is racism across the board in the UK, some of it undoubtedly due to Brexit. Jewish thinkers and speakers would do well to set their complaints in that context.
Mysticrose said:
See, I have to say that until the 'Jewish Community' began all this ranting I was sympathetic to what they were saying and very upset with the anti-semitism in Labour.
What they're actually achieving is to turn me totally against them and making begin to re-think my views on subjects like Jewish agendas and Israel.
They should belt up. If they want to talk about anti-semitism, talk about the whole of racism.
In 2010 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 7 seats
In 2015 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 6 seats
In 2017 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory would have gained them 8 seats
In 2017 a 1% swing from Lab to Tory WILL gain them 15 seats
So even a mere 1% swing could gain the Tories a tiny majority
Some people want to dispute the significance of ending the scourge of slavery.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/antisemitism-open-your-eyes-jeremy-corbyn-labour
I would estimate the number of unique ancestors to be much smaller 400 years ago, 4 figures rather than 5.
But I'm also wondering what ancestors were fighting (and dying) to end the slave trade 400 years ago? I see that Peter the Great abolished slavery in 1723, but I don't know if that involved much fighting or dying, and was in Russia, and wasn't specifically about the slave trade, so I'm a bit confused.
I never said anything about precise. 🤦♂️
65,00 would be an estimate
65,536 is a precise estimate
On an underground modern slavery level it most definitely is not and that is the modern day scourge we need to be concentrating on tackling rather than arguing about actions 5 centuries ago.
A 1% swing focussed on safe Tory seats gives them nothing, a national 1% swing centered on 20 close marginals gives them the lot.
I really don't think we will know the end result here until actual seats get announced.
But that's just a number it was never meant to be precise. Many generations were below 20 years which will increase the number, many were over 20 years which will reduce it and many ancestors will be repeated which will make our number of unique ancestors lower.
Priti is a liberal. The British Empire has a top top record on slavery.
You certainly think (!) outside the box, I'll give you that.
They are saying they are doing very well in London, I.e they did *not* add the rest of the south to that rumour. Indeed Swinson admits the Tories will have a majority.
Therefore I take it canvassing in the shires is not going too well for the libdems.
Congratulations you've just hit the jackpot.
However, to be fair to BJO he condemns the offer.
The position would of course have to be addressed by the government of the day if the Supreme Court rules in the waspi's favour
News on guildford has gone a little quiet and I've nor heard anything on the likes of southport. I wonder if they are just going to pile all in on inner and sw London?
If it starts to look like the difference between victory and defeat, maybe Boris will have to buy them off too. It’s worth almost anything to keep Corbyn and his hateful chums out of Downing Street.
Compensating freed slaves.
Off the top of my head.
More generally, back in 1942 a British civil servant wrote, about the reports the British government was receiving about German persecution of Jews, that nothing of the kind was happening; this was all “hysteria” by “wailing Jews”.
To read some of the posts in the previous thread, some by posters who don’t even live here, is to read a repeat of that civil servant’s mindset. Any concerns by Jews are apparently unreal, hysterical, not put in context or no worse than what others suffer. Or worse they lead to some rethinking their views about Jews and their “agenda”; complaints by Jews are the reason why some people are anti-Jewish - if only they would be quiet no-one would hate them.
The idea that the fears might be real, that some understanding of why they exist, some empathy with people who have good reason for feeling concerned when a long-standing prejudice is revived might be worthwhile seems wholly foreign to these posters.
It is a dismal sight, to say the least. Some people really do need take a good long hard look at themselves.
Either a very small venue or the camera is pointing into the corner of the room.
The better of waspi's gain substantially, Theresa May by about £27,000. I doubt she will vote for it
I did discuss it with my conservative candidate who said they had to be honest and the Country cannot afford it. It is greater than the defence budget
What happens if the courts find the WASPI were not treated unfairly?
Can the Govt of the day simply ignore that and pay money out anyhow?
But their feudal system and villeins weren't exactly poster boys for freedom.
Better a slave of Cicero than a villein, perhaps.
Mr. Rentool, mwahahaha!
ie everybody else.
My figures suggest a Labour hold, partly because of the swings required, but mainly due to the effect of the camel-forename-recognition-modifier(c).
Your on the ground anecdata is much appreciated though. Give it a week before you unleash KK.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1199272695550169088
Less than half of Labour leavers who voted Labour in 2017 will even consider voting for them again in 2019.
Yougov estimated 3.5m leave voters voted Labour in 2017, so that is looking like 2 million lost voters right there with over 1 million of them switching to the Tories. That neutral stance could really hurt them.
It should be an easy hold, but Raab is rapidly getting a pariah personal reputation only seen previously in the cases of Portillo and Balls.
WASPI Women - if you want to receive your State Pension 5 years before your husband, simply marry a man 5 years younger than you are.
(Full disclosure - Wor Lass is 5 years older than me!)
The EHRC is only investigating the one party not both as much as some people love to do whatabouterism.
Shit policy but popular it seems from my sample of 5
If it's taxable the amount paid out will be higher but some will flow back to the Exchequer; if it's not then it's simply the amount paid.
Whether it is taxable or not I think would prove quite a difficult question. Compensation is not generally taxable, but compensation for lost income is.
Dirty cash I want you, dirty cash I need you, woh-oh
Money talks, money talks
Dirty cash I want you, dirty cash I need you, woh-oh
Has Jezza got locked in the gender-neutral bathroom?
1. Go hard against it - 58 billion pound black hole, stealing from the young, etc.
2. Ignore it - the less said, the better.
3. Wait for the weekend polls, and if it's costing the Tories several points, just make a pledge to match Labour's offer on Monday? The problem with this is that copying Labour is poor optics, but on the other it seems the public is easily bribed, so why not?
Am I right in remembering that the Tory manifesto leaves 70-80 billion of "investment" money promised, but unspecified? That would easily supply the Magic Wasp Money!
The standard period for a human generation is normally quoted as 30 years. Worth noting that people didn't generally start reproducing immediately when fertile. Even among peasants marriage was often delayed until the family could set up a son with enough land to support himself and his own family.
More importantly, people didn't move around as much, so once you go back a few generations there will be a lot of duplicate ancestors. My mother has found a lot of dynastic intermarriage in our family history of modest farmers. Accounting for this pedigree collapse mathematically is complicated, but the effect naturally grows with the number of generations.
As an aside, while it's fair to say that all people with European ancestry are probably descended from Charlemagne, or indeed a more recent individual, the way in which DNA is divided for inheritance means that very few people will have any DNA sourced directly from him
That's not to say that I disagree with your point. Though some contemporary individuals will have benefited from an inheritance derived from the slave trade more than others, the benefit to the country as a whole is considerable, and something for which we bear a collective responsibility.
Interesting that Boris is about to do a speech in Dunfermline just a few miles from Gordon Browns patch
https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1199296919522226176
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50557097
I remain hopeful that people are mature enough to see through a last minute attemped bung with no funding in despearation for votes.
This is as bad as steal your house 2017 fiasco
Do you know anything about the history of Ireland?
Views on the legacy of the British Empire in this country are rarely nuanced or accurate. They come down to whether you’re pro or anti British, which sets the battlelines, and the rest is confirmation bias.