And in many cases he's rejecting public opinion because he's running scared of the far right press. Most people want nationalised utilities, but Starmer is so terrified of the Mail and Telegraph bleating about affordability he cowers and supports the status quo. All he need do is say "obviously it's preferable that public utilities are in public hands. Privatisation has failed, and we have a long term aspiration to restore public ownership so that public services truly serve the public".
Amen.
When oh when will we lose the influence of the far right press?
When we lose the influence of our genes.
Bollocks. Not every country has a press as mercilessly reactionary as ours. It's a consequence of ownership and it's fixable. Institute a fit and proper person test for newspaper ownership and limit ownership to those who are UK resident citizens (including for tax purposes).
Uh huh. And when will that become politically possible? The bollocks are in our genes expressed exponentially in populations above ten million as you move away from NW European culture. Just look at the fucking world man! Nationalists(Fascists)-R-Us. That is genetic.
If I may, before the Damocles sword falls, I want to try and interpret what I said as racist, as it has been taken as such, by way of fully retracting that utterly unintended implication.
And yes, I can make the first italicized sentence racist with emphasis and interpolation:
'The bollocks are in our genes expressed, as in represented, as in increasingly prevalent in genetic frequency, exponentially in populations above ten million as you move away from NW European culture'. Are there other ways that it can be interpreted to be racist? Please? That is an open question.
I believe that there is a negative synergy between population number and universal, common, normal, anthropological as in man as animal, human nature. Hence my use of gene expression dependent on population size.
Is that racist?
There are other factors of the primacy of geography and history as an outcome of that. The only constant is evolved, gene based, universal human nature. I am not aware of any population, let alone 'race' based, variation in human nature. Or canine nature, the dog species has the greatest phenotypical variation of any I believe.
To have pre-empted an interpretation of racism, which I am not smart enough to have foreseen I'm afraid, I would have stated my belief above.
One of my favourite wiki pages is this. Sort on 2022 by ascending, then descending. All eight of the first rate full democracies are NW European by culture, including New Zealand. All have populations below approximately ten million.
Why?
Certainly not because of more superior, Aryan, eusocial genes. But because of population size history within geography playing out better on universal human nature: the better angels of our nature.
Is that racist? Can it be construed to be in any way? The ethnicity of the the cultures is absolutely irrelevant.
If it can still be construed that way, then I completely retract it. But just because it can be construed that way, is it? Fundamentally. Inextricably. If so, then not only must I retract it, I must not believe it and won't, I must not, even if I can't see it due to some genetic lack.
@Martin54, it's probably best to try and avoid couching arguments in terms of pop genetics, because you then end up using arguments similar to racists and eugenicists (who also base their views on pop genetics).
What you seem to be trying to say is that population size is one of the factors that influence the quality of democracy, that smaller populations (generally) better express democracy than larger ones. Which I'd say isn't very controversial - in smaller populations the links between voters and representatives are closer, representatives have a better understanding of the people they represent and those people are better able to approach their representatives.
Where you're digging a hole is in relation to some of the other factors. Which includes the history and cultural experience of democracy within a given population. That is often tied up with colonialism and post colonial history, and mention of genetics in that context can be read (as many others would intend) as racist.
What you also seem to be trying to say is that all humans share the same evolutionary history where survival of one group (often relatively closely related) required an "us vs them" mentality towards others who competed for limited resources (which is, I'd say, a form of pop evolution - things are, of course, far more complex). And, when democracy fails that comes to the fore and is expressed in greater prevalence of policies that emphasise identity, protection of "our" resources against the mass of "them", with the racism and xenophobia that accompanies that.
Superb @Alan Cresswell Thank you. Pop or not, and complex, we're highly constrained by our instincts in eight figure and more populations. Post-colonial democracies are all second rate at best. With the notable exception of New Zealand, because it's small enough, so there is hope. A powerful argument for devolution, regional autonomy.
What you also seem to be trying to say is that all humans share the same evolutionary history where survival of one group (often relatively closely related) required an "us vs them" mentality towards others who competed for limited resources (which is, I'd say, a form of pop evolution - things are, of course, far more complex).
I'd certainly agree with it.
And, when democracy fails that comes to the fore and is expressed in greater prevalence of policies that emphasise identity, protection of "our" resources against the mass of "them", with the racism and xenophobia that accompanies that.
When democracy succeeds, too. Unless you think that people voting based on identity politics is somehow a failure of democracy?
What you also seem to be trying to say is that all humans share the same evolutionary history where survival of one group (often relatively closely related) required an "us vs them" mentality towards others who competed for limited resources (which is, I'd say, a form of pop evolution - things are, of course, far more complex).
I'd certainly agree with it.
And, when democracy fails that comes to the fore and is expressed in greater prevalence of policies that emphasise identity, protection of "our" resources against the mass of "them", with the racism and xenophobia that accompanies that.
When democracy succeeds, too. Unless you think that people voting based on identity politics is somehow a failure of democracy?
That depends on your success and failure criteria for democracy. If your success criteria include "produces an equitable and fair outcome which doesn't result in oppression of marginalised groups", then democracy has failed to deliver that success criterion. If your sole criterion is "returns representatives who got the highest number of votes" then it's not.
In other words, the process of democracy, and the results we ask it to deliver, may be two different things.
Some intriguing things going on with Labour. Some comments I have heard, Starmer's luck has run out, the removal of the Rochdale candidate was delayed because he's a Blairite, the second removal because he said fuck Israel is wacky. And, also, pulling back the green budget may cost votes. Expect the Tories to look emboldened?
I agree with Martin on this one. Labour are well ahead on polling because they are the obvious alternative not necessary because they have policies people like. Kier himself has better polling than Rishi but he is still not universally liked. Starmer Is better in interviews that Sunak bit so is a cuckoo clock. Starmer should be a better public speaker as he was a lawyer.
'Better' in a largely comparative sense, he doesn't cope with pressure particular well, and there's more than a touch of Alan Partridge to his rather convoluted sentence structure.
I would like to know why the the best a “government” with a comfortable majority could do in the situation was to run away (although not many had turned up in the first place, to be fair).
Because the SNP had more in mind than just the wording? That seems to be a common view.
Lindsay Hoyle, who has been a much better Speaker than Bercow during the last five years, may become a victim of the politicking and I think that would be a shame.
I don’t think the event will do Keir Starmer much harm. He’s been playing for the political middle ground like Tony Blair before him.
I would like to know why the Speaker changed his mind about the Gaza vote after his conversation with Sir Keir.
He said he was worried about threats to mps - and given the multiple murders of mps in the last ten years, I can believe it might have been a genuine concern.
A genuine concern, but I don't see how the events of Wednesday were going to improve security of MPs even if things had worked out better. If the threat to MPs is from the right wing (which is from recent examples the biggest threat) then the threat is to those seen supporting Israel. If the threat is from pro-Palestinian groups (who haven't presented any threat of violence, at least until now) then, again, it's those who aren't seen condemning Israel who are at risk. If the threat is from pro-Israeli groups, who also aren't doing anything that might be a threat to MP safety, then the threat is to anyone seen as too pro-Israel. Whichever way you see it, and whichever groups you identify as potential threats to the safety of MPs, simply having a motion on Gaza will increase the potential threat. The Labour version will upset one group of people, the SNP a different, and the Conservative yet another.
And, the focus on peaceful protests near Parliament or other political centres (MP offices, local council headquarters) as though these are threats to safety of politicians is nothing more than yet another attack on democracy. Though I would admit that protests outside the homes of politicians is going too far, not because they present a risk to politicians but that even politicians deserve some work-life balance and time away from their work as politicians, and the family of politicians and their neighbours shouldn't have their life impacted that way.
Lindsay Hoyle, who has been a much better Speaker than Bercow during the last five years,
Really? I thought Bercow was excellent at empowering parliament against the overweening power of the executive. Hoyle has too often been supine in the face of the latter.
Lindsay Hoyle, who has been a much better Speaker than Bercow during the last five years, may become a victim of the politicking and I think that would be a shame.
Hoyle implying that the normal operation of the first party to be lead by a Muslim was enabling terrorist attacks was worse than anything Bercow has done to date (including whatever the FCS may have got up to).
Lindsay Hoyle, who has been a much better Speaker than Bercow during the last five years,
Really? I thought Bercow was excellent at empowering parliament against the overweening power of the executive. Hoyle has too often been supine in the face of the latter.
We’ll just have to differ. Bercow had some merits but the size of his ego was always apparent in the way he did the job. That’s not been true about Hoyle.
Lindsay Hoyle, who has been a much better Speaker than Bercow during the last five years, may become a victim of the politicking and I think that would be a shame.
Hoyle implying that the normal operation of the first party to be lead by a Muslim was enabling terrorist attacks was worse than anything Bercow has done to date (including whatever the FCS may have got up to).
Must have missed that. Hasn’t Sunak just accused him of being pro-Palestine?
Lindsay Hoyle, who has been a much better Speaker than Bercow during the last five years, may become a victim of the politicking and I think that would be a shame.
Hoyle implying that the normal operation of the first party to be lead by a Muslim was enabling terrorist attacks was worse than anything Bercow has done to date (including whatever the FCS may have got up to).
What was the actual claim here? "If I didn't allow MPs to debate the Labour motion there would have been a terrorist attack" ? It would be utterly risible if it hadn't helped open the floodgates for the predictable Islamophobia from the Conservative benches that followed.
Self styled liberals who were briefing papers that Labour had 'shaken off fleas' (when Muslim councillors left the party over Gaza) are happy to be hand maidens to the racism that follows.
Read the link. I don’t see it the same way as you do. He made a mistake. Do you think it was his intention to open the door for Islamaphobes? It seems more likely to me that they took advantage of the situation his mistake created.
Read the link. I don’t see it the same way as you do. He made a mistake.
Did you watch the video? This was his considered remark the day after the event and his statement amounted to saying that he put the Labour amendment through first because voting on the SNP's motion would have enabled terrorism. He invoked fear of the mob, and the Tories were happy to follow up. The result was the branding of the Gaza protests as being full of Islamist anti-Semites who are now an actual threat to parliament.
These are dangerous levels of racism and Islamophobia and will lead to a very dark place.
A genuine concern, but I don't see how the events of Wednesday were going to improve security of MPs even if things had worked out better. If the threat to MPs is from the right wing (which is from recent examples the biggest threat) then the threat is to those seen supporting Israel. If the threat is from pro-Palestinian groups (who haven't presented any threat of violence, at least until now) then, again, it's those who aren't seen condemning Israel who are at risk. If the threat is from pro-Israeli groups, who also aren't doing anything that might be a threat to MP safety, then the threat is to anyone seen as too pro-Israel. Whichever way you see it, and whichever groups you identify as potential threats to the safety of MPs, simply having a motion on Gaza will increase the potential threat. The Labour version will upset one group of people, the SNP a different, and the Conservative yet another.
And, the focus on peaceful protests near Parliament or other political centres (MP offices, local council headquarters) as though these are threats to safety of politicians is nothing more than yet another attack on democracy. Though I would admit that protests outside the homes of politicians is going too far, not because they present a risk to politicians but that even politicians deserve some work-life balance and time away from their work as politicians, and the family of politicians and their neighbours shouldn't have their life impacted that way.
Absolutely. I'm very sorry to say Hoyle blew it. Security is none of his concern. Compromising on the conventions of the Mother of Parliaments, even in wartime, is not acceptable. I look forward to George Galloway entering the House on Friday. What a Speaker he would make!
I thought Alan Cresswell’s post was a very good analysis.
Maybe I’m conditioned to think the best of people. I don’t think the video proves Hoyle to be an Islamophobe, or a fellow traveller. My recollection is that if anything he is pro-Palestine.
Did he really “invoke the fear of the mob”? Is it not the case that those who do that simply latched on to what he said in support of their hate mongering.
I I don’t think the video proves Hoyle to be an Islamophobe, or a fellow traveller.
I think talking of motives can be a bit slippery and would rather speak of actions and effects. Do you recognise that there is an effort to whip up Islamophobia via a mixture of racism and cynicism ?
My recollection is that if anything he is pro-Palestine.
On what basis ? On his recent trip to Israel he was accompanied by Tzipi Hotovely, a polarising figure even within Israel who was made ambassador to the UK specifically because Netanyahu was trying to park her out of the country.
Did he really “invoke the fear of the mob”?
In the context of that opposition day, yes he explicitly did. He states that the reason he put Labour’s amendment first was because of his fear of violence.
Other commentators have written to similar effect:
The purpose of the SNP motion was to try and split the votes by the Labour MPs. The purpose of the Labour amendment was to allow their MPs to support a ceasefire without voting for the SNP motion.
The purpose of the SNP motion was to try and split the votes by the Labour MPs. The purpose of the Labour amendment was to allow their MPs to support a ceasefire without voting for the SNP motion.
I agree. The SNP’s major battle at the general election will be with Labour, and they clearly intended the motion (which was non-binding and has no effect, as far as I can see) to be a trap for their opponents. The fact that KH clearly outmanoeuvred them, whether by fair means or foul, has probably done him and Labour no harm at all.
It’s still a disgrace that stronger UK advocacy and action towards a ceasefire is not happening, but that’s really under the control of the ‘government’ under RS.
The purpose of the SNP motion was to try and split the votes by the Labour MPs. The purpose of the Labour amendment was to allow their MPs to support a ceasefire without voting for the SNP motion.
I agree. The SNP’s major battle at the general election will be with Labour, and they clearly intended the motion (which was non-binding and has no effect, as far as I can see) to be a trap for their opponents.
The alternative would have been for Labour to tabled a motion of their own prior to this on one of their opposition days (they had an opportunity to do so earlier in the month). The reality is that they wouldn't have even tabled this amendment if they could have possibly avoided it and were forced into doing so because of the SNPs motion.
The fact that KH clearly outmanoeuvred them, whether by fair means or foul, has probably done him and Labour no harm at all.
In both that sense and in terms of salience it was a relatively minor issue and the take away here is that when given the choice between "losing" such an issue or rules lawyering to avoid defeat with unforeseeable long term blowback, he'll choose the latter.
Thanks. I accept your points. At best, Lindsay Hoyle has lost his way. The protests against Israel’s retaliatory actions in Gaza are entirely justified. If I implied in any way that I did not believe that, I misrepresented myself.
To make it clear. I was horrified by October 7th but have become more horrified by what has happened in Gaza since.
Thanks. I accept your points. At best, Lindsay Hoyle has lost his way. The protests against Israel’s retaliatory actions in Gaza are entirely justified. If I implied in any way that I did not believe that, I misrepresented myself.
To make it clear. I was horrified by October 7th but have become more horrified by what has happened in Gaza since.
How are Israel supposed to defeat Hamas without continuing military action. They have to do this because Hamas have vowed to destroy Israel.
Comments
If I may, before the Damocles sword falls, I want to try and interpret what I said as racist, as it has been taken as such, by way of fully retracting that utterly unintended implication.
And yes, I can make the first italicized sentence racist with emphasis and interpolation:
'The bollocks are in our genes expressed, as in represented, as in increasingly prevalent in genetic frequency, exponentially in populations above ten million as you move away from NW European culture'. Are there other ways that it can be interpreted to be racist? Please? That is an open question.
I believe that there is a negative synergy between population number and universal, common, normal, anthropological as in man as animal, human nature. Hence my use of gene expression dependent on population size.
Is that racist?
There are other factors of the primacy of geography and history as an outcome of that. The only constant is evolved, gene based, universal human nature. I am not aware of any population, let alone 'race' based, variation in human nature. Or canine nature, the dog species has the greatest phenotypical variation of any I believe.
To have pre-empted an interpretation of racism, which I am not smart enough to have foreseen I'm afraid, I would have stated my belief above.
One of my favourite wiki pages is this. Sort on 2022 by ascending, then descending. All eight of the first rate full democracies are NW European by culture, including New Zealand. All have populations below approximately ten million.
Why?
Certainly not because of more superior, Aryan, eusocial genes. But because of population size history within geography playing out better on universal human nature: the better angels of our nature.
Is that racist? Can it be construed to be in any way? The ethnicity of the the cultures is absolutely irrelevant.
If it can still be construed that way, then I completely retract it. But just because it can be construed that way, is it? Fundamentally. Inextricably. If so, then not only must I retract it, I must not believe it and won't, I must not, even if I can't see it due to some genetic lack.
What you seem to be trying to say is that population size is one of the factors that influence the quality of democracy, that smaller populations (generally) better express democracy than larger ones. Which I'd say isn't very controversial - in smaller populations the links between voters and representatives are closer, representatives have a better understanding of the people they represent and those people are better able to approach their representatives.
Where you're digging a hole is in relation to some of the other factors. Which includes the history and cultural experience of democracy within a given population. That is often tied up with colonialism and post colonial history, and mention of genetics in that context can be read (as many others would intend) as racist.
What you also seem to be trying to say is that all humans share the same evolutionary history where survival of one group (often relatively closely related) required an "us vs them" mentality towards others who competed for limited resources (which is, I'd say, a form of pop evolution - things are, of course, far more complex). And, when democracy fails that comes to the fore and is expressed in greater prevalence of policies that emphasise identity, protection of "our" resources against the mass of "them", with the racism and xenophobia that accompanies that.
I'd certainly agree with it.
When democracy succeeds, too. Unless you think that people voting based on identity politics is somehow a failure of democracy?
That depends on your success and failure criteria for democracy. If your success criteria include "produces an equitable and fair outcome which doesn't result in oppression of marginalised groups", then democracy has failed to deliver that success criterion. If your sole criterion is "returns representatives who got the highest number of votes" then it's not.
In other words, the process of democracy, and the results we ask it to deliver, may be two different things.
'Better' in a largely comparative sense, he doesn't cope with pressure particular well, and there's more than a touch of Alan Partridge to his rather convoluted sentence structure.
Lindsay Hoyle, who has been a much better Speaker than Bercow during the last five years, may become a victim of the politicking and I think that would be a shame.
I don’t think the event will do Keir Starmer much harm. He’s been playing for the political middle ground like Tony Blair before him.
He said he was worried about threats to mps - and given the multiple murders of mps in the last ten years, I can believe it might have been a genuine concern.
And, the focus on peaceful protests near Parliament or other political centres (MP offices, local council headquarters) as though these are threats to safety of politicians is nothing more than yet another attack on democracy. Though I would admit that protests outside the homes of politicians is going too far, not because they present a risk to politicians but that even politicians deserve some work-life balance and time away from their work as politicians, and the family of politicians and their neighbours shouldn't have their life impacted that way.
Really? I thought Bercow was excellent at empowering parliament against the overweening power of the executive. Hoyle has too often been supine in the face of the latter.
Hoyle implying that the normal operation of the first party to be lead by a Muslim was enabling terrorist attacks was worse than anything Bercow has done to date (including whatever the FCS may have got up to).
We’ll just have to differ. Bercow had some merits but the size of his ego was always apparent in the way he did the job. That’s not been true about Hoyle.
Must have missed that. Hasn’t Sunak just accused him of being pro-Palestine?
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1760652225649512896
What was the actual claim here? "If I didn't allow MPs to debate the Labour motion there would have been a terrorist attack" ? It would be utterly risible if it hadn't helped open the floodgates for the predictable Islamophobia from the Conservative benches that followed.
Self styled liberals who were briefing papers that Labour had 'shaken off fleas' (when Muslim councillors left the party over Gaza) are happy to be hand maidens to the racism that follows.
Did you watch the video? This was his considered remark the day after the event and his statement amounted to saying that he put the Labour amendment through first because voting on the SNP's motion would have enabled terrorism. He invoked fear of the mob, and the Tories were happy to follow up. The result was the branding of the Gaza protests as being full of Islamist anti-Semites who are now an actual threat to parliament.
These are dangerous levels of racism and Islamophobia and will lead to a very dark place.
Absolutely. I'm very sorry to say Hoyle blew it. Security is none of his concern. Compromising on the conventions of the Mother of Parliaments, even in wartime, is not acceptable. I look forward to George Galloway entering the House on Friday. What a Speaker he would make!
Maybe I’m conditioned to think the best of people. I don’t think the video proves Hoyle to be an Islamophobe, or a fellow traveller. My recollection is that if anything he is pro-Palestine.
Did he really “invoke the fear of the mob”? Is it not the case that those who do that simply latched on to what he said in support of their hate mongering.
I think talking of motives can be a bit slippery and would rather speak of actions and effects. Do you recognise that there is an effort to whip up Islamophobia via a mixture of racism and cynicism ?
On what basis ? On his recent trip to Israel he was accompanied by Tzipi Hotovely, a polarising figure even within Israel who was made ambassador to the UK specifically because Netanyahu was trying to park her out of the country.
In the context of that opposition day, yes he explicitly did. He states that the reason he put Labour’s amendment first was because of his fear of violence.
Other commentators have written to similar effect:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-claim-muslims-threatening-democracy-dangerous-evidence-where
Perhaps he misspoke (again), but then perhaps someone that maladroit shouldn’t be speaker.
I agree. The SNP’s major battle at the general election will be with Labour, and they clearly intended the motion (which was non-binding and has no effect, as far as I can see) to be a trap for their opponents. The fact that KH clearly outmanoeuvred them, whether by fair means or foul, has probably done him and Labour no harm at all.
It’s still a disgrace that stronger UK advocacy and action towards a ceasefire is not happening, but that’s really under the control of the ‘government’ under RS.
The alternative would have been for Labour to tabled a motion of their own prior to this on one of their opposition days (they had an opportunity to do so earlier in the month). The reality is that they wouldn't have even tabled this amendment if they could have possibly avoided it and were forced into doing so because of the SNPs motion.
In both that sense and in terms of salience it was a relatively minor issue and the take away here is that when given the choice between "losing" such an issue or rules lawyering to avoid defeat with unforeseeable long term blowback, he'll choose the latter.
Thanks. I accept your points. At best, Lindsay Hoyle has lost his way. The protests against Israel’s retaliatory actions in Gaza are entirely justified. If I implied in any way that I did not believe that, I misrepresented myself.
To make it clear. I was horrified by October 7th but have become more horrified by what has happened in Gaza since.
How are Israel supposed to defeat Hamas without continuing military action. They have to do this because Hamas have vowed to destroy Israel.
Continued discussion of the rights and wrongs of the situation in Gaza needs to go to Epiphanies please.
UK politics can stay here.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host