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?
Actually, the pyramid builders were paid labourers, not slaves.
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
BJO also the WASPI 'bribe' highlights that Labour is a caring party. Will resonate, whatever Labours motivations.
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.
Tory voters like their bungs as much as Labour ones do. I expect most pensioners would whine like a mule if the triple-lock went back to a double one.
I don’t like any state bungs (and receive none, except pensions tax relief I guess) but I do like lower taxes.
I guess in my defence at least the linkage there is consistent.
Do we know if the Waspi bribe is taxable or not? The state pension is of course.
It should be and it should also be reduced by any benefits received in the meanwhile and any other mitigating steps taken by the women. If fairness is really what Labour is concerned about - as opposed to simple bribery.
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!
Stuff the WASPIs. Use the money to help students - specifically get rid of the 6% interest rate on student loans. A far better and fairer use of the money.
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.
I’d also point out that it is three times the social care budget, that the women have lost in court so there is no injustice and that you can’t claim to want equality only when it benefits you and at the expense of the young, other women and other men.
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
The _only_ gamechanger for the reds is bribery with tens of billions of pounds of public money. It's literally buying votes.
"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.
Are you seriously suggesting that article contains any explanation?
Yes I read the article.
There's nothing in it to explain why that mural is anti-Semitic. Other then one line: "It’s not just the big, hookednoses and evil expressions". The noses are various sizes (including the non-Jewish people at the table with big noses). That's spurious. 'Evil expressions' So 5 bankers, 3 Christians, 2 Jews, with 'evil expressions'? Seriously. That article cleverly weaves layer upon layer, yet with no factual basis for its central claim.
The only other allegation against the mural contained in the article is that its reminiscent of the way the Nazis depicted people sat at a table resting on human bodies (ironically). Yet the mural is not Jews sat on dead bodies, it is banking magnates (mostly Christian) sat at a table with living bodies (the poor of the world).
There are thousands of such depictions other groups, religions, artists, and cultures around the world. Context is everything. The article completely fails to engage with the fact that the people depicted at the table are mostly non-Jewish.
You can hypothesise that the artist may be anti-Semitic, but there's nothing anti-Semitic in it that's apparent to an observer.
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
BJO also the WASPI 'bribe' highlights that Labour is a caring party. Will resonate, whatever Labours motivations.
Yeah: Labour cares about the few (some noisy entitled women) not the many - those who have to pay for it.
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.
These last couple of threads are as much evidence as you need of the poison that has engulfed the Left.
"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!
People said it was anti-Semitic in 2012. Corbyn somehow took over half a decade to catch up. People who realised it was anti-Semitic in 2012 included Lutfur Rahman - "I have received a number of complaints that the mural has anti-Semitic images. I share these concerns. Whether intentional or otherwise, the images of the bankers perpetuate anti-Semitic propaganda about conspiratorial Jewish domination of financial and political institutions."
Breaking news. My mum was born in 1949. She is not entirely happy with these payments.
She got her pension at 60 but prioritises tax cuts for Millionaires over others getting the same?
Yeah, this mindset is bizarre.
My mum was also born in 1949. Why would she vote Corbyn? Clearly the Waspi promise will never be delivered on and for anyone pension age upwards voting Labour is clearly a greater risk to your hard earned savings and pensions. With no dementia tax I expect the Tories to hammer Labour in the over 65 age bracket.
The 10 year bracket below 65 will be a bit more receptive to Labour in part as there are plenty of pro Europeans amongst them.
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
You have to be born between 1 April 1950 and 1 April 1960.
Almost all women currently in their 50s will not be eligible.
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?
No you need to explain why tax breaks for the rich is prioritised whilst others in work are needing foodbanks. Tories brought you bribes for Pensioners
Lab bring you bribes for soon to be pensioners
Both are wrong IMO but if it wins elections shurgs shoulders
If you install a browser extension like Stylus or Cascadea that allows you to write custom CSS for a site, you can make PB Vanilla vaguely readable again by adding the rule:
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?
No you need to explain why tax breaks for the rich is prioritised whilst others in work are needing foodbanks. Tories brought you bribes for Pensioners
Lab bring you bribes for soon to be pensioners
Both are wrong IMO but if it wins elections shurgs shoulders
What "tax breaks for the rich"? I'm still waiting for mine!
Tories, who've focus their strategy around greater and more lavish giveaways to OAPs are blindsided by a massive giveaway to OAPs.
Poetic.
I know you don't like that Corbyn fellow but if Mum/Grandma gets this [£25,000] payment we can all go on a nice family holiday and she will lend you some money for that new car you need. .... Dynamite
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?
It would be subject to judicial review and a huge outcry in the country
I doubt the Courts would intervene to allow a judicial review (Court permission is needed to start a Judicial Review), they will not intervene merely on policy ground, where there isn't a specific person or group harmed or policy or practice breached. If it's just the public at large, they would likely only intervene if a decision breaches the 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' test (i.e. that it is so irrational that no reasonable person would have made such a decision). That wouldn't apply here.
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
One could reasonable argue that any woman starting work before 1995 would reasonably have been preparing for at least part of their their career to have been retiring at 60. Thus compensation for any woman born before 1979 would be no less justifiable. I imagine it's being considered.
I support neither the triple lock nor the WASPI bung. To be transparent, I would benefit from the bung. But I will not vote Labour because of it. If anything it makes me more determined to vote against them. It is a disgraceful waste of public money when there are far better uses such a sum could be used for.
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?
It would be subject to judicial review and a huge outcry in the country
I doubt the Courts would intervene to allow a judicial review (permission is needed to start a Judicial Review), they will not intervene merely on policy ground, where there isn't a specific person or group harmed or policy or practice breached. If it's just the public at large, they would likely only intervene if a decision is Wednesbury unreasonableness (so irrational that no reasonable person would have made such a decision). That wouldn't apply here.
It the Supreme Court rules the waspi have no case then it is more than unreasonable to apply compensation to something the court has confirmed does not exist
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?
No you need to explain why tax breaks for the rich is prioritised whilst others in work are needing foodbanks. Tories brought you bribes for Pensioners
Lab bring you bribes for soon to be pensioners
Both are wrong IMO but if it wins elections shurgs shoulders
What "tax breaks for the rich"? I'm still waiting for mine!
Tories, who've focus their strategy around greater and more lavish giveaways to OAPs are blindsided by a massive giveaway to OAPs.
Poetic.
It was striking in the recent ICM poll that Labour lead with people in full-time or part-time work, but are behind 49-12 among the retired. Is it really healthy for the retired to run the country?
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
The _only_ gamechanger for the reds is bribery with tens of billions of pounds of public money. It's literally buying votes.
Which party habitually goes round promising tax cuts?
You speak of “the possibility of CON losses if enough tactical voting takes place”. BUT so long as different tactical voting sites make different recommendations, the anti-Tory vote will be split in a manner which keeps a Tory in. Let me give my own central London constituency as an example. If the CON candidate is not to win, the LD candidate needs an increase of nearly 14K votes over the 2017 result, whereas the LAB candidate needs only 3K. Remain United (Gina Miller’s tactical voting site) recommends a LAB vote, rightly as it seems to me. But the People’s Vote recommends LD here. As a Party member and canvasser, I am quite confident that Labour can keep most of its 15K votes from 2017 – unless of course tactical voting recommendations make for changes of mind. Even if a full one third of 2017 Tory voters don’t want to vote for a Johnson-led-CON candidate, the effect of all of them turning to the LD candidate will be to keep the Tory in. If just half of this one third voted LAB, the Tory would be kept out. Rough, I know. But I have to assume that (whatever it says) the People’s Vote is more anti-LAB than it is anti-CON, and that Jo Swinson’s message that a tactical vote must go to LD is wrong in at least some constituencies. Shame that the various central London ones have been considered simply as a block for polling purposes.
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?
No you need to explain why tax breaks for the rich is prioritised whilst others in work are needing foodbanks. Tories brought you bribes for Pensioners
Lab bring you bribes for soon to be pensioners
Both are wrong IMO but if it wins elections shurgs shoulders
What "tax breaks for the rich"? I'm still waiting for mine!
Top rate of tax was cut
Very slightly, after Gordon Brown cynically raised it at the very end of Labour's term. Wow. Meanwhile, taxes on capital gains and property have jumped up, and numerous allowances and reliefs have been reduced or eliminated. I know these facts never appear in your world, but the "rich" are paying more tax under the Tories than they ever did under New Labour!
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
BJO also the WASPI 'bribe' highlights that Labour is a caring party. Will resonate, whatever Labours motivations.
The motivation is to win the election.
Had the Conservatives proposed this first you wouldn’t be able to hear for the howling of bribery and irresponsibility - together with strong intergenerational warfare rhetoric - from the official opposition.
Muslims are not afraid to live in the U.K. (and there is a tendency to try and conflate legitimate criticism of radical Islamists with an on Muslims as a group)
This is not altogether true. I have several Muslim friends in the Nottingham area who simply put up with regular low-level aggression - strangers shouting "jokey aggression" ("Where's your turban, Paki?" was one confused one). One used to have a restaurant in Ilkeston - he gave it up because he came to expect nastiness every couple of days, as well as actual violence - his wondows were smashed twice. I don't know any who are considering emigration. But they feel that a state of permanent low-level alarm is sadly something they have to live with. I'm not sure that people in comfortable areas really realise this.
You speak of “the possibility of CON losses if enough tactical voting takes place”. BUT so long as different tactical voting sites make different recommendations, the anti-Tory vote will be split in a manner which keeps a Tory in. Let me give my own central London constituency as an example. If the CON candidate is not to win, the LD candidate needs an increase of nearly 14K votes over the 2017 result, whereas the LAB candidate needs only 3K. Remain United (Gina Miller’s tactical voting site) recommends a LAB vote, rightly as it seems to me. But the People’s Vote recommends LD here. As a Party member and canvasser, I am quite confident that Labour can keep most of its 15K votes from 2017 – unless of course tactical voting recommendations make for changes of mind. Even if a full one third of 2017 Tory voters don’t want to vote for a Johnson-led-CON candidate, the effect of all of them turning to the LD candidate will be to keep the Tory in. If just half of this one third voted LAB, the Tory would be kept out. Rough, I know. But I have to assume that (whatever it says) the People’s Vote is more anti-LAB than it is anti-CON, and that Jo Swinson’s message that a tactical vote must go to LD is wrong in at least some constituencies. Shame that the various central London ones have been considered simply as a block for polling purposes.
Except that the vast majority of those who choose to vote tactically will make up their minds without any reference to a tactical voting sight - so the issue is one of what they feel locally rather than analysis based on past results and advice sites.
You speak of “the possibility of CON losses if enough tactical voting takes place”. BUT so long as different tactical voting sites make different recommendations, the anti-Tory vote will be split in a manner which keeps a Tory in. Let me give my own central London constituency as an example. If the CON candidate is not to win, the LD candidate needs an increase of nearly 14K votes over the 2017 result, whereas the LAB candidate needs only 3K. Remain United (Gina Miller’s tactical voting site) recommends a LAB vote, rightly as it seems to me. But the People’s Vote recommends LD here. As a Party member and canvasser, I am quite confident that Labour can keep most of its 15K votes from 2017 – unless of course tactical voting recommendations make for changes of mind. Even if a full one third of 2017 Tory voters don’t want to vote for a Johnson-led-CON candidate, the effect of all of them turning to the LD candidate will be to keep the Tory in. If just half of this one third voted LAB, the Tory would be kept out. Rough, I know. But I have to assume that (whatever it says) the People’s Vote is more anti-LAB than it is anti-CON, and that Jo Swinson’s message that a tactical vote must go to LD is wrong in at least some constituencies. Shame that the various central London ones have been considered simply as a block for polling purposes.
Except that the vast majority of those who choose to vote tactically will make up their minds without any reference to a tactical voting sight - so the issue is one of what they feel locally rather than analysis based on past results and advice sites.
Indeed, it is one area where the ground campaign is crucial. The sites are only useful for providing material for squeeze letters and leaflets
Worth remember before us of course there were those Empires. Anyone who objectively looks at the contribution of the Spanish and the English empires can not view us as unmitigatingly evil.
Or the Mughal or Ottoman empires for that matter, let alone the West African kingdoms which fed the slave trade.
My post is to say that we should not glorify the cessation of an appalling act.
We should be ashamed of the appalling act having happened.
Your point that appalling acts were normalized - that's true, of some societies/parts of society at that time. That does not impact my point that there should not be glory in ceasing a horrific act.
It's also not a binary issue of 'this used to be ok' and 'now it's not'. Slavery was never ok to large portions of the world's populations.
You seem to be 'a fool who is looking from' the western standards of the time, when the world is and was full of societies with very different standards.
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?
My great grandfather repeatedly smashed someone in the face in a pub in Grimsby before thinking better of it. Am I supposed to celebrate him because he stopped punching the guy?
The best analogy is that we were part of a gang of thugs who raped and beat a defenceless grandmother senseless before deciding this was immoral and persuading the others to stop, That is not “brave” and as for “lost their lives”, unless you had ancestors in the Union Army, palpably bollocks. The slave trade we were stopping, that which began in the late C16/earlyC17 and helped start, was of a cruelty unmatched in recorded history. To suggest this country should do anything but hang it’s head in shame over it betrays a massive historical ignorance at best.
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?
My great grandfather repeatedly smashed someone in the face in a pub in Grimsby before thinking better of it. Am I supposed to celebrate him because he stopped punching the guy?
The best analogy is that we were part of a gang of thugs who raped and beat a defenceless grandmother senseless before deciding this was immoral and persuading the others to stop, That is not “brave” and as for “lost their lives”, unless you had ancestors in the Union Army, palpably bollocks. The slave trade we were stopping, that which began in the late C16/earlyC17 and helped start, was of a cruelty unmatched in recorded history. To suggest this country should do anything but hang it’s head in shame over it betrays a massive historical ignorance at best.
Oh, come on. The point is that the people who did the stopping aren't the same people who did the beating. Your analogy works better if it's you throwing off generations of societal acceptance of violence and deciding life would be better if you didn't punch Grimsby-based pubgoers.
Also, I think comparing Africans to defenceless grandmothers comes across as somewhat patronising?
Comments
I don’t like any state bungs (and receive none, except pensions tax relief I guess) but I do like lower taxes.
I guess in my defence at least the linkage there is consistent.
https://mobile.twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1199299870798032896
Yes I read the article.
There's nothing in it to explain why that mural is anti-Semitic.
Other then one line: "It’s not just the big, hookednoses and evil expressions". The noses are various sizes (including the non-Jewish people at the table with big noses). That's spurious. 'Evil expressions' So 5 bankers, 3 Christians, 2 Jews, with 'evil expressions'? Seriously. That article cleverly weaves layer upon layer, yet with no factual basis for its central claim.
The only other allegation against the mural contained in the article is that its reminiscent of the way the Nazis depicted people sat at a table resting on human bodies (ironically). Yet the mural is not Jews sat on dead bodies, it is banking magnates (mostly Christian) sat at a table with living bodies (the poor of the world).
There are thousands of such depictions other groups, religions, artists, and cultures around the world. Context is everything. The article completely fails to engage with the fact that the people depicted at the table are mostly non-Jewish.
You can hypothesise that the artist may be anti-Semitic, but there's nothing anti-Semitic in it that's apparent to an observer.
Poetic.
The 10 year bracket below 65 will be a bit more receptive to Labour in part as there are plenty of pro Europeans amongst them.
Almost all women currently in their 50s will not be eligible.
WASPI payments == unaffordable Marxist bung, forcing the nations youth into penury
Tories brought you bribes for Pensioners
Lab bring you bribes for soon to be pensioners
Both are wrong IMO but if it wins elections shurgs shoulders
If you install a browser extension like Stylus or Cascadea that allows you to write custom CSS for a site, you can make PB Vanilla vaguely readable again by adding the rule:
blockquote blockquote { display: none !important; }payment we can all go on a nice family holiday and she will lend you some money for that new car you need. .... Dynamite
If it's just the public at large, they would likely only intervene if a decision breaches the 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' test (i.e. that it is so irrational that no reasonable person would have made such a decision). That wouldn't apply here.
They dont exist and wont exist
I support neither the triple lock nor the WASPI bung. To be transparent, I would benefit from the bung. But I will not vote Labour because of it. If anything it makes me more determined to vote against them. It is a disgraceful waste of public money when there are far better uses such a sum could be used for.
New thread
Let me give my own central London constituency as an example. If the CON candidate is not to win, the LD candidate needs an increase of nearly 14K votes over the 2017 result, whereas the LAB candidate needs only 3K. Remain United (Gina Miller’s tactical voting site) recommends a LAB vote, rightly as it seems to me. But the People’s Vote recommends LD here. As a Party member and canvasser, I am quite confident that Labour can keep most of its 15K votes from 2017 – unless of course tactical voting recommendations make for changes of mind. Even if a full one third of 2017 Tory voters don’t want to vote for a Johnson-led-CON candidate, the effect of all of them turning to the LD candidate will be to keep the Tory in. If just half of this one third voted LAB, the Tory would be kept out. Rough, I know. But I have to assume that (whatever it says) the People’s Vote is more anti-LAB than it is anti-CON, and that Jo Swinson’s message that a tactical vote must go to LD is wrong in at least some constituencies. Shame that the various central London ones have been considered simply as a block for polling purposes.
Had the Conservatives proposed this first you wouldn’t be able to hear for the howling of bribery and irresponsibility - together with strong intergenerational warfare rhetoric - from the official opposition.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/26/what-you-hear-about-chinese-people-in-france-feeling-scared-its-true
I don’t think the British Empire started the global slave trade.
I strongly suspect all of those enslaved by British participation are long dead.
Off the top of my head.
The best analogy is that we were part of a gang of thugs who raped and beat a defenceless grandmother senseless before deciding this was immoral and persuading the others to stop, That is not “brave” and as for “lost their lives”, unless you had ancestors in the Union Army, palpably bollocks. The slave trade we were stopping, that which began in the late C16/earlyC17 and helped start, was of a cruelty unmatched in recorded history. To suggest this country should do anything but hang it’s head in shame over it betrays a massive historical ignorance at best.
Also, I think comparing Africans to defenceless grandmothers comes across as somewhat patronising?