Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
This could do for Starmer what sacking Emily Thornberry did for Ed Miliband
Remind me how Miliband did at the subsequent GE...
WTF is the government trying to achieve with "air bridges"? If an AB is created to a country, will ABs then be created to all other countries it has at least some open (or more or less open) border-crossings with, and so on, down the line?
Or will it be a case of you can fly to France and then drive to Italy and on to Slovenia, and back through Italy to France to catch a flight back, without going in to quarantine back in Blighty, but you can't fly from Blighty to Slovenia?
This is going to put him in such a contrast with Johnson and is going to shut down any attack lines.
Strategy is back in the Labour Party, bravo Keir, bravo
I wonder if RLB will seek to get sufficient nominations to challenge Keir for the Leadership?
She wouldn't require nominations unless there was a vacancy. Under Labour Party rules, there won't be a vacancy unless Starmer loses a vote of confidence among the PLP.
There is ZERO chance of that happening for the foreseeable future as (i) most Labour MPs think he's doing a grand job; and (ii) even hard Corbynites, who may well prefer someone else, aren't stupid enough to move on him in the certain knowledge they will lose.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
This could do for Starmer what sacking Emily Thornberry did for Ed Miliband
I have been checking the US Polls, and we now have at least one poll in each battleground state (Maine and Nebraska are still a bit of a problem, but thankfully that's only a small effect). We will assume not faithless electors - there were 7 last time.
Hillary won 13 states, plus DC and ME-1, by more than 10%. Only a very ambitious Republican candidate could expect to make progress here, and I think we can now rule this out. This gives Biden a whopping 183 Electoral College Votes (ECVs).
There are 13 states, plus NE-1 and NE-3, which would only be winnable by the Dems on a landslide, worth 72 ECVs. There are a further 7 states (53 ECVs) where Biden would need double the (large) swing he is already showing, which I would call out-of-reach at the moment. Biden would need the best campaign of his life... and I don't think he is Mr Charasmatic in that way.
That leaves 17 states, plus ME-2 and NE-2, which I think we can now reasonably suggest are battleground states.
Biden leads Trump by 10% or more in 5 states also won by Hillary, which seem like the natural starting point. Only Virginia looks vulnerable, if we think Kaine's nomination helped Clinton (not too much evidence of that IIRC though). These five add another 39 ECVs, bringing Biden up to 222. Let's pencil those in.
To make sense of the rest, I think we have to assume that Biden would be happy with the 8% swing he's achieved on present polls (i return below to bigger wins). This would hand him a further 8 states, for a handsome 333 ECVs to Trump's 204, only a smidgen worse than Obama v McCain in 2008. They are:
Michigan (16 ECVs) Wisconsin (10 ECVs) Pennsylvania (20) New Hampshire (4) Florida (29) Arizona (11) North Carolina (15) Nevada (6)
To win the Presidency, Biden needs 47.
To my mind the most straightforward route is to force Trump to lose the Presidency the way he won it, by conceding Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, plus any other state - states won by Trump's appeal in 2016 to white, working class, "passed over" voters. Biden currently leads Trump by 9% in these states.
There is, I think, another route focused more clearly on Latino, Hispanic and Black voters, which involves Florida, Arizona, Nevada and another. There is however very little sign of Biden picking up more votes than Clinton in this demographic, although he does lead Trump by 6% in these states at the moment.
This is going to put him in such a contrast with Johnson and is going to shut down any attack lines.
Strategy is back in the Labour Party, bravo Keir, bravo
I wonder if RLB will seek to get sufficient nominations to challenge Keir for the Leadership?
She wouldn't require nominations unless there was a vacancy. Under Labour Party rules, there won't be a vacancy unless Starmer loses a vote of confidence among the PLP.
There is ZERO chance of that happening for the foreseeable future as (i) most Labour MPs think he's doing a grand job; and (ii) even hard Corbynites, who may well prefer someone else, aren't stupid enough to move on him in the certain knowledge they will lose.
I am not aware that a vote of confidence from Labour MPs is required.
Talking of Corbynista anti-semitism, do we know when the EHRC report is due?
I think it's meant to be going to Labour for comment by the end of the month, then they have 28 days to respond. SO I would guess publication will be in September.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
I knew the Hindu symbol would eventually be brought up!
The difference is the Hindu symbol is now solely and fully associated with the extremists. That isn't the case with either the Union Flag or taking the knee.
Try telling that to Hindu's. Last time I looked that symbol was still on their ancient temples. And rightly so.
Starmer has left himself open to awkward questions about Maxine Peake. Will he himself declare her comment antisemitic?
What she did was spread an antisemitic conspiracy theory. That's clear. Starmer has no absolutely need to opine on whether someone he has probably never met (or if he has, only very briefly) is personally antisemitic or merely woefully ill-informed.
This is going to put him in such a contrast with Johnson and is going to shut down any attack lines.
Strategy is back in the Labour Party, bravo Keir, bravo
I wonder if RLB will seek to get sufficient nominations to challenge Keir for the Leadership?
Er...no.
Or at least, she might seek. But I think she would find the answer less than Biblical.
I am being slightly flippant - but she probably could muster sufficient support from Corbynite MPs were she so inclined.
I wonder:
Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or Deputy Leader shall not be required to seek nominations in the event of a challenge under this rule.
Talking of Corbynista anti-semitism, do we know when the EHRC report is due?
I think it's meant to be going to Labour for comment by the end of the month, then they have 28 days to respond. SO I would guess publication will be in September.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
I knew the Hindu symbol would eventually be brought up!
The difference is the Hindu symbol is now solely and fully associated with the extremists. That isn't the case with either the Union Flag or taking the knee.
Try telling that to Hindu's. Last time I looked that symbol was still on their ancient temples. And rightly so.
It's also on the floor at Upminster Bridge station:
This is going to put him in such a contrast with Johnson and is going to shut down any attack lines.
Strategy is back in the Labour Party, bravo Keir, bravo
I wonder if RLB will seek to get sufficient nominations to challenge Keir for the Leadership?
She wouldn't require nominations unless there was a vacancy. Under Labour Party rules, there won't be a vacancy unless Starmer loses a vote of confidence among the PLP.
There is ZERO chance of that happening for the foreseeable future as (i) most Labour MPs think he's doing a grand job; and (ii) even hard Corbynites, who may well prefer someone else, aren't stupid enough to move on him in the certain knowledge they will lose.
I am not aware that a vote of confidence from Labour MPs is required.
It is. It happened in the 2016 challenge to Corbyn, and I don't believe the system has been changed to make challenge easier since then (it would be very surprising indeed if it had under Corbyn himself).
Starmer has left himself open to awkward questions about Maxine Peake. Will he himself declare her comment antisemitic?
What she did was spread an antisemitic conspiracy theory. That's clear. Starmer has no absolutely need to opine on whether someone he has probably never met (or if he has, only very briefly) is personally antisemitic or merely woefully ill-informed.
Starmer has left himself open to awkward questions about Maxine Peake. Will he himself declare her comment antisemitic?
What she did was spread an antisemitic conspiracy theory. That's clear. Starmer has no absolutely need to opine on whether someone he has probably never met (or if he has, only very briefly) is personally antisemitic or merely woefully ill-informed.
Peake is a self-righteous type who will never acknowledge that she could possibly be mistaken - like some many of the leftie luvvies out there who are all too willing to share their 'opinions' as if anyone needed to hear them.
Surely if RLB can't sit in the shadow cabinet, Peake should be expelled from Labour (if she is indeed a member)
That would be more surprising, and he might be wary of causing upset among Long-Bailey's supporters at this stage. After all, while what she did was silly and offensive, she didn't directly say anything anti-semitic.
But it sets the precedent that Labour is sensitive to charges of anti-semitism and will deal with them ruthlessly. That in itself sends a rather clear message on what to expect if the EHRC report is damning.
I think this is more about getting rid of a former rival rather than anything more significant.
He saw an opportunity to get rid of her and went for it - which is good in one way, but I am not sure he is that concerned about dealing with AS - this feels tactical rather than principled.
If that was the reason why appoint her in the first place a couple of months ago? Doesn't make any sense at all.
Starmer is making Labour electable by drawing a distinct line under the past. The more the Corbynistas whine about this the better for Labour.
In theory it is meant to have a sunset clause. It is not being presented as a practical way of dealing with social distancing because the problem is not caused by this. It is being presented as a way of dealing with the backlog by, dishonestly, claiming that this has been caused by Covid when that is untrue.
But I simply do not trust the government on this, any of them. Temporary solutions have a habit of becoming permanent.
We are already coming out of lockdown so there is no real reason why there cannot be socially distanced trials now.
To get rid of a backlog of 40,000 cases this change would need to go on for years not a few months which is why I don’t believe the temporary claim.
Re the numbers, the reason for 12 is to allow jurors to drop out and still permit a majority verdict if necessary. If you reduce the total you raise the possibility of having trials aborted because there are insufficient jurors even for a majority verdict. Currently you can have an 8-2 verdict.
So 7 is too low. You could reduce to 10 - temporarily. But this or even 7 does not increase capacity. For that courts need to be reopened etc. There are very real measures which can be taken to deal with the backlog but the government does not want to take them and is - quite dishonestly - pretending that these two false choices are the only ones.
Got you. Thanks.
To underline Cyclefree's points, income tax was introduced as a 'temporary measure' I believe.
And yet here we are.
I think we're saying scrapping juries is a bad thing though.
What I am saying is we should not be fobbed off with the idea that scrapping juries is a 'temporary measure' because 'temporary measures' tend to become permanent.
Yes. Temporary measures - whether good or bad - sometimes end up becoming permanent. This is indisputable. We are as one.
The "Israeli military does it" excuse is never a good idea. Unless you can actually provide some evidence.
Clue - military and police manuals are never secret for long.
And since a vast range of Israelis pass through the security forces for their national service, keeping this kind of thing hidden is basically impossible.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
I knew the Hindu symbol would eventually be brought up!
The difference is the Hindu symbol is now solely and fully associated with the extremists. That isn't the case with either the Union Flag or taking the knee.
Try telling that to Hindu's. Last time I looked that symbol was still on their ancient temples. And rightly so.
Indeed and fair enough too!
But context matters. If I see a white skinhead with that symbol tattooed on them I'm not thinking "holy Hindu symbol". If I see it on a Hindu temple I would.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
Extremists join every protest. Extremists join every movement.
Protests can still be powerful and the right thing to do is fight the extremists and support the parts of the protest you believe in.
The BNP may wrap themselves in the Union Flag or the Cross of St George. I will still proudly support and if I want to fly the Union Flag or the Cross of St George because they are the flags of my country. Extremists may kneel, but I will still kneel if I want to and if I was PM I would have knelt in front of the door of Number 10 to show support to equality.
I don't expect the PM not to fly the Union Flag just because the BNP wrap themselves in it. Why do you expect Starmer not to show support to a cause he believes in because of a minority abusing it?
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
What about if the PM uses a racist word whose last use by a major British politician was by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech? I wonder what that would tell us?
Well Boris used it, and subsequently became PM with a massive majority, so I suppose it tells us people don't care
So racism is ok as long as it is popular. Ok thanks, next time one of my family gets racially abused I will bear that in mind.
Who said that? You asked what using Picanninie meant, and, in terms of a bar to political achievement, it seems not much. My point is I think Starmer will be associated with BLM violence now he has taken the knee for them, doesn't matter if I think it's right or wrong that he did it.
But you DO think it was wrong. Otherwise you would not make the point so doggedly.
I do think it's wrong, yes. But that isn't the point
There are plenty of people who are mildly irritated by the kneeling protest, and many of them are Red/Blue-Wallers, but they are not going to refuse to vote for anyone who joins in with it.
Save for a few who have genuinely misunderstood it, the people who are so angered by the protest that it would sway their vote were never going to vote Labour anyway, and nor should Labour be courting their votes.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
Extremists join every protest. Extremists join every movement.
Protests can still be powerful and the right thing to do is fight the extremists and support the parts of the protest you believe in.
The BNP may wrap themselves in the Union Flag or the Cross of St George. I will still proudly support and if I want to fly the Union Flag or the Cross of St George because they are the flags of my country. Extremists may kneel, but I will still kneel if I want to and if I was PM I would have knelt in front of the door of Number 10 to show support to equality.
I don't expect the PM not to fly the Union Flag just because the BNP wrap themselves in it. Why do you expect Starmer not to show support to a cause he believes in because of a minority abusing it?
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
What about if the PM uses a racist word whose last use by a major British politician was by Enoch Powell in his Rivers of Blood speech? I wonder what that would tell us?
Well Boris used it, and subsequently became PM with a massive majority, so I suppose it tells us people don't care
So racism is ok as long as it is popular. Ok thanks, next time one of my family gets racially abused I will bear that in mind.
Who said that? You asked what using Picanninie meant, and, in terms of a bar to political achievement, it seems not much. My point is I think Starmer will be associated with BLM violence now he has taken the knee for them, doesn't matter if I think it's right or wrong that he did it.
Picaninny meant that Boris was satirising Blair's resort to an Imperial Progress because he was held in such contempt at home. I have no problem with that - pointing out that Blair was behaving like a latterday puffed up Colonel Blimp in plus fours and a pith helmet.
There's some other stuff in that piece that is more worrying, though, imo.
In the context of the rest of the piece, it just looked as though he was enjoying the opportunity to use the term, which is not one in acceptable usage today.
So satirising White Saviour Imperialism is OK, if you *aren't* enjoying yourself?
Starmer has left himself open to awkward questions about Maxine Peake. Will he himself declare her comment antisemitic?
What she did was spread an antisemitic conspiracy theory. That's clear. Starmer has no absolutely need to opine on whether someone he has probably never met (or if he has, only very briefly) is personally antisemitic or merely woefully ill-informed.
Peake is a self-righteous type who will never acknowledge that she could possibly be mistaken - like some many of the leftie luvvies out there who are all too willing to share their 'opinions' as if anyone needed to hear them.
Surely if RLB can't sit in the shadow cabinet, Peake should be expelled from Labour (if she is indeed a member)
She can go back to 'Left Unity' along with Ken Loach, and look forward to getting 120 votes in a by-election.
This is just like the furore over the cost of changing passports colour when in reality that change didn't cost anything it was just part of the specification used and the passports would have been required and the same money spent either way.
Is it just me, or it is rathe anodyne - graphic artist does a riff on the flag?
This is going to put him in such a contrast with Johnson and is going to shut down any attack lines.
Strategy is back in the Labour Party, bravo Keir, bravo
I wonder if RLB will seek to get sufficient nominations to challenge Keir for the Leadership?
She wouldn't require nominations unless there was a vacancy. Under Labour Party rules, there won't be a vacancy unless Starmer loses a vote of confidence among the PLP.
There is ZERO chance of that happening for the foreseeable future as (i) most Labour MPs think he's doing a grand job; and (ii) even hard Corbynites, who may well prefer someone else, aren't stupid enough to move on him in the certain knowledge they will lose.
I am not aware that a vote of confidence from Labour MPs is required.
It is. It happened in the 2016 challenge to Corbyn, and I don't believe the system has been changed to make challenge easier since then (it would be very surprising indeed if it had under Corbyn himself).
That is why he was challenged in 2016 - but it was not a requirement. I have just checked the rules - RLB would need the nomination of 22 MP s and 5% of CLPs. I am not expecting it - simply pondering the possibility!
If we want instead to talk about the size of Biden's victory ( a little premature perhaps), then let's instead assume that Biden wins all states he's currently leading in, plus NE-2 and ME-2 - a total of 335 ECVs. Where next?
There are a group of 4 states which I couldn't easily assign a victor on current polls: Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Iowa. Georgia is possibly the most talked about but I don't quite sense it. There are however quite a lot of ECVs here (78), which would mean a 413 - 125 victory - comparable to Bush v Dukakis.
Finally, a further Biden advance before November might conceivable see him gain a further 7 states, including (for example) Louisiana and Alaska (53) votes, putting Trump comparable to Carter in 1980 or Goldwater in 1964.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
I knew the Hindu symbol would eventually be brought up!
The difference is the Hindu symbol is now solely and fully associated with the extremists. That isn't the case with either the Union Flag or taking the knee.
Try telling that to Hindu's. Last time I looked that symbol was still on their ancient temples. And rightly so.
Indeed and fair enough too!
But context matters. If I see a white skinhead with that symbol tattooed on them I'm not thinking "holy Hindu symbol". If I see it on a Hindu temple I would.
Yes. When I saw a photo of Colin Kapernick take the knee in 2016 I didn't think 'Taking sides on race riots in Britain 2020' but when I see a left wing politician do so whilst BLM are rioting, I do!
This is going to put him in such a contrast with Johnson and is going to shut down any attack lines.
Strategy is back in the Labour Party, bravo Keir, bravo
I wonder if RLB will seek to get sufficient nominations to challenge Keir for the Leadership?
She wouldn't require nominations unless there was a vacancy. Under Labour Party rules, there won't be a vacancy unless Starmer loses a vote of confidence among the PLP.
There is ZERO chance of that happening for the foreseeable future as (i) most Labour MPs think he's doing a grand job; and (ii) even hard Corbynites, who may well prefer someone else, aren't stupid enough to move on him in the certain knowledge they will lose.
I am not aware that a vote of confidence from Labour MPs is required.
It is. It happened in the 2016 challenge to Corbyn, and I don't believe the system has been changed to make challenge easier since then (it would be very surprising indeed if it had under Corbyn himself).
The whole point is that there is no 'vote of no confidence' mechanism in Labour. THe vote on Corbyn had no actual standing, it was purely advisory.
Later, Owen Smith managed to get sufficient nominations to launch a leadership contest instead, which is the only way of removing a sitting Labour leader.
I have been checking the US Polls, and we now have at least one poll in each battleground state (Maine and Nebraska are still a bit of a problem, but thankfully that's only a small effect). We will assume not faithless electors - there were 7 last time.
Hillary won 13 states, plus DC and ME-1, by more than 10%. Only a very ambitious Republican candidate could expect to make progress here, and I think we can now rule this out. This gives Biden a whopping 183 Electoral College Votes (ECVs).
There are 13 states, plus NE-1 and NE-3, which would only be winnable by the Dems on a landslide, worth 72 ECVs. There are a further 7 states (53 ECVs) where Biden would need double the (large) swing he is already showing, which I would call out-of-reach at the moment. Biden would need the best campaign of his life... and I don't think he is Mr Charasmatic in that way.
That leaves 17 states, plus ME-2 and NE-2, which I think we can now reasonably suggest are battleground states.
Biden leads Trump by 10% or more in 5 states also won by Hillary, which seem like the natural starting point. Only Virginia looks vulnerable, if we think Kaine's nomination helped Clinton (not too much evidence of that IIRC though). These five add another 39 ECVs, bringing Biden up to 222. Let's pencil those in.
To make sense of the rest, I think we have to assume that Biden would be happy with the 8% swing he's achieved on present polls (i return below to bigger wins). This would hand him a further 8 states, for a handsome 333 ECVs to Trump's 204, only a smidgen worse than Obama v McCain in 2008. They are:
Michigan (16 ECVs) Wisconsin (10 ECVs) Pennsylvania (20) New Hampshire (4) Florida (29) Arizona (11) North Carolina (15) Nevada (6)
To win the Presidency, Biden needs 47.
To my mind the most straightforward route is to force Trump to lose the Presidency the way he won it, by conceding Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, plus any other state - states won by Trump's appeal in 2016 to white, working class, "passed over" voters. Biden currently leads Trump by 9% in these states.
There is, I think, another route focused more clearly on Latino, Hispanic and Black voters, which involves Florida, Arizona, Nevada and another. There is however very little sign of Biden picking up more votes than Clinton in this demographic, although he does lead Trump by 6% in these states at the moment.
Pardon me - but isn't Biden doing very well with black voters? The loyal VP of Obama etc?
This is going to put him in such a contrast with Johnson and is going to shut down any attack lines.
Strategy is back in the Labour Party, bravo Keir, bravo
I wonder if RLB will seek to get sufficient nominations to challenge Keir for the Leadership?
She wouldn't require nominations unless there was a vacancy. Under Labour Party rules, there won't be a vacancy unless Starmer loses a vote of confidence among the PLP.
There is ZERO chance of that happening for the foreseeable future as (i) most Labour MPs think he's doing a grand job; and (ii) even hard Corbynites, who may well prefer someone else, aren't stupid enough to move on him in the certain knowledge they will lose.
I am not aware that a vote of confidence from Labour MPs is required.
It is. It happened in the 2016 challenge to Corbyn, and I don't believe the system has been changed to make challenge easier since then (it would be very surprising indeed if it had under Corbyn himself).
The whole point is that there is no 'vote of no confidence' mechanism in Labour. THe vote on Corbyn had no actual standing, it was purely advisory.
Later, Owen Smith managed to get sufficient nominations to launch a leadership contest instead, which is the only way of removing a sitting Labour leader.
Reply to Mr Thompson (the number of nested quotes was getting out of hand).
Interesting you mention “taking the knee” as a symbol. In the original context of American Football the act is one performed by quarterbacks in games all the time, so the phrase has a resonance to Americans that far fewer in the wider world would get. Would you say it still has the symbolism of an act used to run down the clock at the end of a half when your team is winning, or has the meaning changed now?
That would be more surprising, and he might be wary of causing upset among Long-Bailey's supporters at this stage. After all, while what she did was silly and offensive, she didn't directly say anything anti-semitic.
But it sets the precedent that Labour is sensitive to charges of anti-semitism and will deal with them ruthlessly. That in itself sends a rather clear message on what to expect if the EHRC report is damning.
I think this is more about getting rid of a former rival rather than anything more significant.
He saw an opportunity to get rid of her and went for it - which is good in one way, but I am not sure he is that concerned about dealing with AS - this feels tactical rather than principled.
If that was the reason why appoint her in the first place a couple of months ago? Doesn't make any sense at all.
Starmer is making Labour electable by drawing a distinct line under the past. The more the Corbynistas whine about this the better for Labour.
She was appointed to the Shadow Cabinet because she came a creditable second in the leadership contest. Not giving her any job would have been provocative, unnecessary and led to early disunity, especially as most of his other shadow cabinet appointments pissed off the left of the party. RLB was a quid pro quo for the likes of Rachel Reeves He knows exactly what he's doing.
I have been checking the US Polls, and we now have at least one poll in each battleground state (Maine and Nebraska are still a bit of a problem, but thankfully that's only a small effect). We will assume not faithless electors - there were 7 last time.
Hillary won 13 states, plus DC and ME-1, by more than 10%. Only a very ambitious Republican candidate could expect to make progress here, and I think we can now rule this out. This gives Biden a whopping 183 Electoral College Votes (ECVs).
There are 13 states, plus NE-1 and NE-3, which would only be winnable by the Dems on a landslide, worth 72 ECVs. There are a further 7 states (53 ECVs) where Biden would need double the (large) swing he is already showing, which I would call out-of-reach at the moment. Biden would need the best campaign of his life... and I don't think he is Mr Charasmatic in that way.
That leaves 17 states, plus ME-2 and NE-2, which I think we can now reasonably suggest are battleground states.
Biden leads Trump by 10% or more in 5 states also won by Hillary, which seem like the natural starting point. Only Virginia looks vulnerable, if we think Kaine's nomination helped Clinton (not too much evidence of that IIRC though). These five add another 39 ECVs, bringing Biden up to 222. Let's pencil those in.
To make sense of the rest, I think we have to assume that Biden would be happy with the 8% swing he's achieved on present polls (i return below to bigger wins). This would hand him a further 8 states, for a handsome 333 ECVs to Trump's 204, only a smidgen worse than Obama v McCain in 2008. They are:
Michigan (16 ECVs) Wisconsin (10 ECVs) Pennsylvania (20) New Hampshire (4) Florida (29) Arizona (11) North Carolina (15) Nevada (6)
To win the Presidency, Biden needs 47.
To my mind the most straightforward route is to force Trump to lose the Presidency the way he won it, by conceding Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, plus any other state - states won by Trump's appeal in 2016 to white, working class, "passed over" voters. Biden currently leads Trump by 9% in these states.
There is, I think, another route focused more clearly on Latino, Hispanic and Black voters, which involves Florida, Arizona, Nevada and another. There is however very little sign of Biden picking up more votes than Clinton in this demographic, although he does lead Trump by 6% in these states at the moment.
Pardon me - but isn't Biden doing very well with black voters? The loyal VP of Obama etc?
Yes. But he is not doing that much better than Hillary. According to CNN, he averages an 83% to 8% lead with black voters over the last two months. Clinton was ahead 83% to 5% in the final 2016 polls.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
I knew the Hindu symbol would eventually be brought up!
The difference is the Hindu symbol is now solely and fully associated with the extremists. That isn't the case with either the Union Flag or taking the knee.
Try telling that to Hindu's. Last time I looked that symbol was still on their ancient temples. And rightly so.
Indeed and fair enough too!
But context matters. If I see a white skinhead with that symbol tattooed on them I'm not thinking "holy Hindu symbol". If I see it on a Hindu temple I would.
Yes. When I saw a photo of Colin Kapernick take the knee in 2016 I didn't think 'Taking sides on race riots in Britain 2020' but when I see a left wing politician do so whilst BLM are rioting, I do!
Incidentally, doesn't the symbol in question usually got the other way to the problematic version?
My wife had a bit of a start when some neighbours painted one on their doorstep - Indian family of course.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Reply to Mr Thompson (the number of nested quotes was getting out of hand).
Interesting you mention “taking the knee” as a symbol. In the original context of American Football the act is one performed by quarterbacks in games all the time, so the phrase has a resonance to Americans that far fewer in the wider world would get. Would you say it still has the symbolism of an act used to run down the clock at the end of a half when your team is winning, or has the meaning changed now?
I know nothing of that symbolism but don't follow the sport.
As far as I know Kaepernick started kneeling to show respect while protesting not to symbolise running down the clock.
I have been checking the US Polls, and we now have at least one poll in each battleground state (Maine and Nebraska are still a bit of a problem, but thankfully that's only a small effect). We will assume not faithless electors - there were 7 last time.
Hillary won 13 states, plus DC and ME-1, by more than 10%. Only a very ambitious Republican candidate could expect to make progress here, and I think we can now rule this out. This gives Biden a whopping 183 Electoral College Votes (ECVs).
There are 13 states, plus NE-1 and NE-3, which would only be winnable by the Dems on a landslide, worth 72 ECVs. There are a further 7 states (53 ECVs) where Biden would need double the (large) swing he is already showing, which I would call out-of-reach at the moment. Biden would need the best campaign of his life... and I don't think he is Mr Charasmatic in that way.
That leaves 17 states, plus ME-2 and NE-2, which I think we can now reasonably suggest are battleground states.
Biden leads Trump by 10% or more in 5 states also won by Hillary, which seem like the natural starting point. Only Virginia looks vulnerable, if we think Kaine's nomination helped Clinton (not too much evidence of that IIRC though). These five add another 39 ECVs, bringing Biden up to 222. Let's pencil those in.
To make sense of the rest, I think we have to assume that Biden would be happy with the 8% swing he's achieved on present polls (i return below to bigger wins). This would hand him a further 8 states, for a handsome 333 ECVs to Trump's 204, only a smidgen worse than Obama v McCain in 2008. They are:
Michigan (16 ECVs) Wisconsin (10 ECVs) Pennsylvania (20) New Hampshire (4) Florida (29) Arizona (11) North Carolina (15) Nevada (6)
To win the Presidency, Biden needs 47.
To my mind the most straightforward route is to force Trump to lose the Presidency the way he won it, by conceding Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, plus any other state - states won by Trump's appeal in 2016 to white, working class, "passed over" voters. Biden currently leads Trump by 9% in these states.
There is, I think, another route focused more clearly on Latino, Hispanic and Black voters, which involves Florida, Arizona, Nevada and another. There is however very little sign of Biden picking up more votes than Clinton in this demographic, although he does lead Trump by 6% in these states at the moment.
Pardon me - but isn't Biden doing very well with black voters? The loyal VP of Obama etc?
Yes. But he is not doing that much better than Hillary. According to CNN, he averages an 83% to 8% lead with black voters over the last two months. Clinton was ahead 83% to 5% in the final 2016 polls.
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
I knew the Hindu symbol would eventually be brought up!
The difference is the Hindu symbol is now solely and fully associated with the extremists. That isn't the case with either the Union Flag or taking the knee.
Try telling that to Hindu's. Last time I looked that symbol was still on their ancient temples. And rightly so.
Indeed and fair enough too!
But context matters. If I see a white skinhead with that symbol tattooed on them I'm not thinking "holy Hindu symbol". If I see it on a Hindu temple I would.
Yes. When I saw a photo of Colin Kapernick take the knee in 2016 I didn't think 'Taking sides on race riots in Britain 2020' but when I see a left wing politician do so whilst BLM are rioting, I do!
Incidentally, doesn't the symbol in question usually got the other way to the problematic version?
My wife had a bit of a start when some neighbours painted one on their doorstep - Indian family of course.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Unwarranted?
And you wonder why I attacked RLB (even if hyperbolically) for being an anti-Semite!!!!
Maybe I should start my own list of things you have said like you do for me, though most of them twisted.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
The problem for Starmer is that if he is going to go on the attack on schools with a more capable minister he may have to go against the teaching unions.
That would be more surprising, and he might be wary of causing upset among Long-Bailey's supporters at this stage. After all, while what she did was silly and offensive, she didn't directly say anything anti-semitic.
But it sets the precedent that Labour is sensitive to charges of anti-semitism and will deal with them ruthlessly. That in itself sends a rather clear message on what to expect if the EHRC report is damning.
I think this is more about getting rid of a former rival rather than anything more significant.
He saw an opportunity to get rid of her and went for it - which is good in one way, but I am not sure he is that concerned about dealing with AS - this feels tactical rather than principled.
If that was the reason why appoint her in the first place a couple of months ago? Doesn't make any sense at all.
Starmer is making Labour electable by drawing a distinct line under the past. The more the Corbynistas whine about this the better for Labour.
She was appointed to the Shadow Cabinet because she came a creditable second in the leadership contest. Not giving her any job would have been provocative, unnecessary and led to early disunity, especially as most of his other shadow cabinet appointments pissed off the left of the party. RLB was a quid pro quo for the likes of Rachel Reeves He knows exactly what he's doing.
A strong leader would have been willing to be provocative. Better late than never.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Losing your job for expressing your political beliefs seems to be all the rage these days...
Any questions to Starmer as to whether his adoption of the BLM pose makes it difficult to criticise violence stemming from that movement? I can imagine Farage or Boris would be quizzed if they were foolish enough to do the the same for a far right equivalent
There is no far right equivalent. The far right is the far right. I have explained this till I'm blue in the face. No equivalence. Every time the false equivalence is made the far right notches a little victory and the spirits of all people of sound mind and good character are lowered.
The far right equivalent would be the BNP rebranding itself 'Don't abuse teenage girls'
I would oppose the abuse of teenage girls even if the BNP did that.
Almost everyone would. But mainstream politicians would be ill advised to pose in solidarity with the BNPs new slogan whilst BNP voters bash up muslims
Kaepernick's protest has nothing to do with the far left or hate groups though and is everything to do with showing respect as it has been for four years. It was agreed four years ago to do that as it was more respectful than his prior protest of staying seated.
People trying to associate it with nonsense since then are no different to idiots trying to associate the Union Flag with the BNP.
Of course, he didn't intend it to be adopted by them, but they have hijacked it now, and it will be used by them in the future. People have already started adding the raising the fist salute to it, and the violence we have seen this month comes from people supporting the movement associated with it.
He can do what he likes, and I'm entitled to think it's a mistake for the reasons I've given
You think if extremists embrace a symbol that symbol should be dropped by all non-extremists it seems?
So do you think because the BNP have embraced the Union Flag any time the PM stands by a Union Flag he's associating himself with the BNP?
Sorry to go all Godwin, but there is a fairly well know example of a Hindu symbol being co-oped by a group of extremists. Anyone in the west now using it is not going to be able to claim to be a non-extremist.
Just like words the meaning of symbols change. Words which started as euphemisms to avoid offence are now themselves offensive: and I’m not going to give examples, I think we all know the sort of word I mean.
I knew the Hindu symbol would eventually be brought up!
The difference is the Hindu symbol is now solely and fully associated with the extremists. That isn't the case with either the Union Flag or taking the knee.
Try telling that to Hindu's. Last time I looked that symbol was still on their ancient temples. And rightly so.
Indeed and fair enough too!
But context matters. If I see a white skinhead with that symbol tattooed on them I'm not thinking "holy Hindu symbol". If I see it on a Hindu temple I would.
Yes. When I saw a photo of Colin Kapernick take the knee in 2016 I didn't think 'Taking sides on race riots in Britain 2020' but when I see a left wing politician do so whilst BLM are rioting, I do!
Incidentally, doesn't the symbol in question usually got the other way to the problematic version?
My wife had a bit of a start when some neighbours painted one on their doorstep - Indian family of course.
Not white skinheads?!
No - just arrived from Mumbai, on work visas. Wife was pregnant - we gave them a n number of boxes of baby/child clothes we had boxed up in storage.
No fan of left wingers like RLB and I am not sure she is up to being Shadow Education Secretary (an important job ) but to cancel her for this is a bit steep imo. It does show we have turned into a very juvenile political land where a slight off message tweet or re tweet will get you sacked. Isn't the job of a politician to have opinions or at least facilitate debate. ? Keir Starmer certainly did with his kneeling - If it was to support BLM well they do have some funny opinions about stuff themselves so he is in danger of being asked why he sacked RLB but he is endorsing all types of extreme stuff with BLM agendas.
What with Burnley welders and senior Labour politicians being sacked for perfectly legal comms we are getting like that Peep Show episode where they were all trying to get each other sectioned.
Wouldn't that cut both ways? If the EU creates rules/supports industries that we believe give them an unfair advantage, we could impose tariffs on them?
No fan of left wingers like RLB and I am not sure she is up to being Shadow Education Secretary (an important job ) but to cancel her for this is a bit steep imo. It does show we have turned into a very juvenile political land where a slight off message tweet or re tweet will get you sacked. Isn't the job of a politician to have opinions or at least facilitate debate. ? Keir Starmer certainly did with his kneeling - If it was to support BLM well they do have some funny opinions about stuff themselves so he is in danger of being asked why he sacked RLB but he is endorsing all types of extreme stuff with BLM agendas.
Long-Bailey's defence was that she supported the thrust of the argument, which said that we need to destroy capitalism and that anyone who supported Starmer but not Corbyn was a Tory.
No fan of left wingers like RLB and I am not sure she is up to being Shadow Education Secretary (an important job ) but to cancel her for this is a bit steep imo. It does show we have turned into a very juvenile political land where a slight off message tweet or re tweet will get you sacked. Isn't the job of a politician to have opinions or at least facilitate debate. ? Keir Starmer certainly did with his kneeling - If it was to support BLM well they do have some funny opinions about stuff themselves so he is in danger of being asked why he sacked RLB but he is endorsing all types of extreme stuff with BLM agendas.
Isn't he simply remodelling Labour after Corbyn, this was his first excuse. He's still got a long way to go to equal Boris's clearing out of Tory Remainers.
Reply to Mr Thompson (the number of nested quotes was getting out of hand).
Interesting you mention “taking the knee” as a symbol. In the original context of American Football the act is one performed by quarterbacks in games all the time, so the phrase has a resonance to Americans that far fewer in the wider world would get. Would you say it still has the symbolism of an act used to run down the clock at the end of a half when your team is winning, or has the meaning changed now?
I know nothing of that symbolism but don't follow the sport.
As far as I know Kaepernick started kneeling to show respect while protesting not to symbolise running down the clock.
It’s not so much the act as the name: calling it “taking a knee” rather than kneeling shows its NFL origins.
On a tangent I think having the national anthem at every game is really odd: For games where two national teams are competing, perhaps, but not every game.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Losing your job for expressing your political beliefs seems to be all the rage these days...
... whereas breaking Lockdown or helping a property developer donor would allow you to keep your job.
Starmer has left himself open to awkward questions about Maxine Peake. Will he himself declare her comment antisemitic?
One could say that he has effectively done so.
Well, it sort of was. It stated that the US police got the idea of kneeling on black people only because of the Israelis. This appears to be a made up story.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Unwarranted?
And you wonder why I attacked RLB (even if hyperbolically) for being an anti-Semite!!!!
Maybe I should start my own list of things you have said like you do for me, though most of them twisted.
1: Sacking RLB was unwarranted.
I'm OK with that - in the sense of this "offence" rather than the wider context of Starmer wanting a clause 4 moment.
There was a discussion earlier about how sometimes juries reach a verdict based on a vista broader than the case in front of them.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
I agree, it does look harsh. But like I said, I think Starmer has said to the shadow front bench: "if you say, tweet, or do anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic then you'll be out straight away, no questions. We have to be seen to kill dead the allegation of anti-semitism. Do you agree?" To which, I'm sure, the shadow front bench nodded assent. RLB is the victim of this. It's as much a matter of party discipline as it is to do with the specific offence.
It's not victimisation of RLB; the result would have been the same for any front bench member.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Losing your job for expressing your political beliefs seems to be all the rage these days...
... whereas breaking Lockdown or helping a property developer donor would allow you to keep your job.
If she didn't realise that endorsing/retweeting that article was politically sensitive she is more stupid than I thought. I saw it and I am not a Jew or in the shadow cabinet. Glad he has sacked her, shows good strong leadership and sends a strong message in many different ways. Another good day Starmer, yet another bad one for Johnson.
One problem with sacking RLB like this is every time another Labour MP does something similar, and that will happen on Twitter, Starmer is going to be put in the position of sacking them too or looking like he was settling a score.
I have been checking the US Polls, and we now have at least one poll in each battleground state (Maine and Nebraska are still a bit of a problem, but thankfully that's only a small effect). We will assume not faithless electors - there were 7 last time.
Hillary won 13 states, plus DC and ME-1, by more than 10%. Only a very ambitious Republican candidate could expect to make progress here, and I think we can now rule this out. This gives Biden a whopping 183 Electoral College Votes (ECVs).
There are 13 states, plus NE-1 and NE-3, which would only be winnable by the Dems on a landslide, worth 72 ECVs. There are a further 7 states (53 ECVs) where Biden would need double the (large) swing he is already showing, which I would call out-of-reach at the moment. Biden would need the best campaign of his life... and I don't think he is Mr Charasmatic in that way.
That leaves 17 states, plus ME-2 and NE-2, which I think we can now reasonably suggest are battleground states.
Biden leads Trump by 10% or more in 5 states also won by Hillary, which seem like the natural starting point. Only Virginia looks vulnerable, if we think Kaine's nomination helped Clinton (not too much evidence of that IIRC though). These five add another 39 ECVs, bringing Biden up to 222. Let's pencil those in.
To make sense of the rest, I think we have to assume that Biden would be happy with the 8% swing he's achieved on present polls (i return below to bigger wins). This would hand him a further 8 states, for a handsome 333 ECVs to Trump's 204, only a smidgen worse than Obama v McCain in 2008. They are:
Michigan (16 ECVs) Wisconsin (10 ECVs) Pennsylvania (20) New Hampshire (4) Florida (29) Arizona (11) North Carolina (15) Nevada (6)
To win the Presidency, Biden needs 47.
To my mind the most straightforward route is to force Trump to lose the Presidency the way he won it, by conceding Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, plus any other state - states won by Trump's appeal in 2016 to white, working class, "passed over" voters. Biden currently leads Trump by 9% in these states.
There is, I think, another route focused more clearly on Latino, Hispanic and Black voters, which involves Florida, Arizona, Nevada and another. There is however very little sign of Biden picking up more votes than Clinton in this demographic, although he does lead Trump by 6% in these states at the moment.
Pardon me - but isn't Biden doing very well with black voters? The loyal VP of Obama etc?
Yes. But he is not doing that much better than Hillary. According to CNN, he averages an 83% to 8% lead with black voters over the last two months. Clinton was ahead 83% to 5% in the final 2016 polls.
A hugely interesting gender split in the black vote in 2016.
The voter study I saw had Black women going 98% Hilary. They had a * next to how many voted for Trump. I don't think it was zero but it was unmeasurably low. Black men went 14% Trump.
Major incident declared in Bournemouth, suffering hugely from a massive influx of visitors and with incidents of violence.
Interesting. Looking at traffic on Google Maps, the road along the coast from Worthing to Brighton looks jammed.
Gridlock around the town, more parking tickets issued than on any single day previously, refuse collectors emptying beachside bins need security guards after previous abuse and assaults. It sounds like chaos down there,
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Losing your job for expressing your political beliefs seems to be all the rage these days...
... whereas breaking Lockdown or helping a property developer donor would allow you to keep your job.
Good. Considering there is a housing shortage helping property developers and opposing NIMBYism should be encouraged.
Superficially the sacking of RLB looks harsh, but it my guess is that Starmer has put the shadow cabinet under a warning that anything that can be perceived as anti-semitic will result in an instant dismissal, so she's had to go. Her crime is fairly minor: praising an article about a socialist actor. As others have said, there is a danger that absolutely any criticism of the Israeli state (including its Secret Service) is taken as ipso facto anti-semitic. We can criticise Putin without criticising the Russian people. Israel perhaps should be a special case, about which we need to be especially careful, but the Israeli government and its agencies must not be beyond criticism.
So although RLB had to go, and Starmer is right, I would rather she had gone for her poor performance as shadow Education Secretary. She has failed to hold to account effectively the manifest failings of Williamson and Johnson on the return to school fiasco.
It does contrast sharply with Jenrick, who despite the defence of some on here should clearly be out of the cabinet for many reasons. The fact that the public don't really care is irrelevant, and signifies governance by publicity rather than by principle. This will end up backfiring on the PM.
She has been invisible on schools. I was just thinking that the other day.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Unwarranted?
And you wonder why I attacked RLB (even if hyperbolically) for being an anti-Semite!!!!
Maybe I should start my own list of things you have said like you do for me, though most of them twisted.
1: Sacking RLB was unwarranted.
Yes I'm OK with that.
In the sense of this "offence" rather than the wider context of Starmer wanting a clause 4 moment.
There was a discussion earlier about how sometimes juries decide based on a vista broader than the case in front of them.
This was similar.
The Clause 4 moment he needs it getting rid of high ranking members of the previous leadership from the party completely. RLB's retweeting is nothing compared to statements/behaviour from Corbyn and many of his clique. Yes, she has done it today - so is the immediate target.
Once the EHRC report comes out, people have to be expelled - and that includes big names. Not allowed to resign. Expelled. No matter who they were.
That is the Clause 4 moment that might help. Today isn't that moment
Right or wrong - and I assume the left think it wrong - it establishes himself as decisive against his own side, and that impression will be helpful even if he is indecisive later.
Major incident declared in Bournemouth, suffering hugely from a massive influx of visitors and with incidents of violence.
Interesting. Looking at traffic on Google Maps, the road along the coast from Worthing to Brighton looks jammed.
Gridlock around the town, more parking tickets issued than on any single day previously, refuse collectors emptying beachside bins need security guards after previous abuse and assaults. It sounds like chaos down there,
My family have gone to Littlehampton today - that tends to be a bit better than the bigger resorts - but I'll report back if there was any trouble there.
yeah - if you're saying that looks like austin powers, get off twitter, m8, and get outside. take some time off.
THE FLAG IS BACK TO FRONT
The union flag being flown upside down used to be a maritime distress signal. Fairly apt for Bozo. Ian Paisley would have had something to say about it!
Wouldn't that cut both ways? If the EU creates rules/supports industries that we believe give them an unfair advantage, we could impose tariffs on them?
Hmm. The one way to avoid that unforeseeable risk of arbitrary treatment is for both sides to sign up permanently to common rules, in effect for the UK io commit to EU rules. I wonder what Frost's intention is?
Comments
Good to see Ash Sarkar and wee Owen getting their knickers in a twist. Just proves Starmer is right.
Or will it be a case of you can fly to France and then drive to Italy and on to Slovenia, and back through Italy to France to catch a flight back, without going in to quarantine back in Blighty, but you can't fly from Blighty to Slovenia?
There is ZERO chance of that happening for the foreseeable future as (i) most Labour MPs think he's doing a grand job; and (ii) even hard Corbynites, who may well prefer someone else, aren't stupid enough to move on him in the certain knowledge they will lose.
Hillary won 13 states, plus DC and ME-1, by more than 10%. Only a very ambitious Republican candidate could expect to make progress here, and I think we can now rule this out. This gives Biden a whopping 183 Electoral College Votes (ECVs).
There are 13 states, plus NE-1 and NE-3, which would only be winnable by the Dems on a landslide, worth 72 ECVs. There are a further 7 states (53 ECVs) where Biden would need double the (large) swing he is already showing, which I would call out-of-reach at the moment. Biden would need the best campaign of his life... and I don't think he is Mr Charasmatic in that way.
That leaves 17 states, plus ME-2 and NE-2, which I think we can now reasonably suggest are battleground states.
Biden leads Trump by 10% or more in 5 states also won by Hillary, which seem like the natural starting point. Only Virginia looks vulnerable, if we think Kaine's nomination helped Clinton (not too much evidence of that IIRC though). These five add another 39 ECVs, bringing Biden up to 222. Let's pencil those in.
To make sense of the rest, I think we have to assume that Biden would be happy with the 8% swing he's achieved on present polls (i return below to bigger wins). This would hand him a further 8 states, for a handsome 333 ECVs to Trump's 204, only a smidgen worse than Obama v McCain in 2008. They are:
Michigan (16 ECVs)
Wisconsin (10 ECVs)
Pennsylvania (20)
New Hampshire (4)
Florida (29)
Arizona (11)
North Carolina (15)
Nevada (6)
To win the Presidency, Biden needs 47.
To my mind the most straightforward route is to force Trump to lose the Presidency the way he won it, by conceding Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, plus any other state - states won by Trump's appeal in 2016 to white, working class, "passed over" voters. Biden currently leads Trump by 9% in these states.
There is, I think, another route focused more clearly on Latino, Hispanic and Black voters, which involves Florida, Arizona, Nevada and another. There is however very little sign of Biden picking up more votes than Clinton in this demographic, although he does lead Trump by 6% in these states at the moment.
Where there is no vacancy, nominations
may be sought by potential challengers
each year prior to the annual session of
Party conference. In this case any
nomination must be supported by 20 per
cent of the combined Commons members
of the PLP and members of the EPLP.
Nominations not attaining this threshold
shall be null and void. The sitting Leader or
Deputy Leader shall not be required to
seek nominations in the event of a
challenge under this rule.
Labour Party Rule Book 2019, chapter 4 clause II
41 MPs seems a toughish ask.
His judgement seems sound.
https://www.proswastika.org/e107_images/newspost_images/europe_uk_london_upminster_bridge_2.jpg
Surely if RLB can't sit in the shadow cabinet, Peake should be expelled from Labour (if she is indeed a member)
Starmer is making Labour electable by drawing a distinct line under the past. The more the Corbynistas whine about this the better for Labour.
Clue - military and police manuals are never secret for long.
And since a vast range of Israelis pass through the security forces for their national service, keeping this kind of thing hidden is basically impossible.
But context matters. If I see a white skinhead with that symbol tattooed on them I'm not thinking "holy Hindu symbol". If I see it on a Hindu temple I would.
Save for a few who have genuinely misunderstood it, the people who are so angered by the protest that it would sway their vote were never going to vote Labour anyway, and nor should Labour be courting their votes.
https://twitter.com/mrchrisaddison/status/1276167587991339017
What did Peake's article say, btw, which was the root of the issue?
Is it just me, or it is rathe anodyne - graphic artist does a riff on the flag?
Bit like -
There are a group of 4 states which I couldn't easily assign a victor on current polls: Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Iowa. Georgia is possibly the most talked about but I don't quite sense it. There are however quite a lot of ECVs here (78), which would mean a 413 - 125 victory - comparable to Bush v Dukakis.
Finally, a further Biden advance before November might conceivable see him gain a further 7 states, including (for example) Louisiana and Alaska (53) votes, putting Trump comparable to Carter in 1980 or Goldwater in 1964.
Johnson and Jenrick
Starmer and Long-Bailey
As someone may have once said, "The difference is I lead my party, he follows his".
Later, Owen Smith managed to get sufficient nominations to launch a leadership contest instead, which is the only way of removing a sitting Labour leader.
Interesting you mention “taking the knee” as a symbol. In the original context of American Football the act is one performed by quarterbacks in games all the time, so the phrase has a resonance to Americans that far fewer in the wider world would get. Would you say it still has the symbolism of an act used to run down the clock at the end of a half when your team is winning, or has the meaning changed now?
My wife had a bit of a start when some neighbours painted one on their doorstep - Indian family of course.
The sacking for this might as you say be good politics. It probably is. I do hope so because on its own it looks to me unwarranted.
As far as I know Kaepernick started kneeling to show respect while protesting not to symbolise running down the clock.
And you wonder why I attacked RLB (even if hyperbolically) for being an anti-Semite!!!!
Maybe I should start my own list of things you have said like you do for me, though most of them twisted.
1: Sacking RLB was unwarranted.
What with Burnley welders and senior Labour politicians being sacked for perfectly legal comms we are getting like that Peep Show episode where they were all trying to get each other sectioned.
https://twitter.com/DavidGHFrost/status/1276158485743439873?s=20
He's still got a long way to go to equal Boris's clearing out of Tory Remainers.
On a tangent I think having the national anthem at every game is really odd: For games where two national teams are competing, perhaps, but not every game.
https://twitter.com/Govgg/status/1276172044808400897?s=20
There was a discussion earlier about how sometimes juries reach a verdict based on a vista broader than the case in front of them.
This was IMO similar.
It's not victimisation of RLB; the result would have been the same for any front bench member.
The voter study I saw had Black women going 98% Hilary. They had a * next to how many voted for Trump. I don't think it was zero but it was unmeasurably low. Black men went 14% Trump.
Once the EHRC report comes out, people have to be expelled - and that includes big names. Not allowed to resign. Expelled. No matter who they were.
That is the Clause 4 moment that might help. Today isn't that moment
So are these polls of Registered voters who are 100% certain to vote?