Politics in General

[Gavin Chipper]

This is quite an interesting speech at the ICJ about Israel's crimes against Palestine over the years.

[Marc Meakin]

This is quite an interesting speech at the ICJ about Israel's crimes against Palestine over the years.

I noticed he mentions 1967 but not it's significance.
Agreed that the attacks against Israel were not Palestinian but the reason was to create a fortress for Israel.
But it's time we had a Palestinian state

[Gavin Chipper]

I think it's best described as a clear call for the destruction of the state of Israel. Either just a "soft" destruction of the regime, or outright ethnic cleansing, doesn't matter.

Making out new complicated meanings to defend idiots? I pass.

Would a single secular state in the region with freedom for current Israelis and Palestinians be such a bad idea?

[Tal Lessner]

I think it's best described as a clear call for the destruction of the state of Israel. Either just a "soft" destruction of the regime, or outright ethnic cleansing, doesn't matter.

Making out new complicated meanings to defend idiots? I pass.

Would a single secular state in the region with freedom for current Israelis and Palestinians be such a bad idea?

Wish it wasn't. But there are too many nationalistic and religious nuts for that. A two state solution is probably the only long term solution.

Look, I'm against the Israeli occupation with all my heart, it's a heinous war crime.

But I think I have a problem with your messages justifying the horrible people on the other side. Albeit downplaying the 7.10 massacre (earlier), or trying to justify calls for the extermination of Israel (From the river to the sea). Just because some idiots or outright horrible people are on your side (there are too many on either side), doesn't mean you need to justify them.

[Gavin Chipper]

My intention has never been to downplay the Hamas terrorist attack on 7/10. I've just focused more on the Israeli response because it's ongoing, larger in scale, and has western support (so seen as acceptable by many people), and so is more of a political talking point in that respect. As for the "from the river to the sea" thing, it's just that I don't think it's always said with ill intent, and as far as egregious things are said and done against Jews, this is not one I would focus on.

I don't think we're probably in massive opposition with each other in general over this.

[Tal Lessner]

I get where you're coming from, we probably do agree on most stuff. But I just find some of your arguements way too one dimensional. Also, there are quite a lot reliable sources to justify your position, but you seem to go back time and time again to some demagogue who seems to extract his knowledge from internet talkbacks (yes, I mean Owen Jones)

[Gavin Chipper]

I haven't mentioned Owen Jones for a while, and I don't rely on him. I just think he puts points across well sometimes. The last video I linked to was from the ICJ. My arguments aren't one-dimensional and I have in any case explained why I have focused more on criticising Israel.

You "play the man" too much and it's not a good argumentation technique.

[Fiona T]

In defence of Tal (not that he needs defending), he's affected by this shitshow very directly, where as the rest of us have the privilege of commentating from the sidelines.

I think if you were designing the solution from scratch you'd have one utopian democratic state where everyone lived happily, equally and harmoniously. But there is far too much history, hatred, prejudice and religion for that to happen in the foreseeable. It's a mess, with no obvious solution.

[Marc Meakin]

In defence of Tal (not that he needs defending), he's affected by this shitshow very directly, where as the rest of us have the privilege of commentating from the sidelines.

I think if you were designing the solution from scratch you'd have one utopian democratic state where everyone lived happily, equally and harmoniously. But there is far too much history, hatred, prejudice and religion for that to happen in the foreseeable. It's a mess, with no obvious solution.

Although I wasn't directly affected by The Troubles in the 70s and 80s but a solution (compromise) was eventually reached so I live in hope for Israel/Palestine.
But probably not whilst Benni is still in charge

[Tal Lessner]

But probably not whilst Benni is still in charge

He's an incurable disease. It's unbelievable how much Bibi just openly shows he cares much more about his political position than about the country he "leads" during crisis.

Main problem is that he has begun to genuinely believe the shit his cult of followers think about him. He really does believe that him remaining prime minister is far more important than whatever shit show is going on in Gaza and internally.
And as long as his last remaining allies are all religious loons and Neo Nazi Zionists, his policy will appease them.
This war brought him to an all time low in popularity. But in the almost three years left until the next elections, he can do so much more damage. And continue not giving a fuck.

[Tal Lessner]

I haven't mentioned Owen Jones for a while, and I don't rely on him. I just think he puts points across well sometimes. The last video I linked to was from the ICJ. My arguments aren't one-dimensional and I have in any case explained why I have focused more on criticising Israel.

You "play the man" too much and it's not a good argumentation technique.

I get why you focus more on criticising Israel. I also focus more on criticising Israel.
I just say that not everybody who criticises Israel is of a sound mind and not with ill intentions.
And I gave OJ as an example, since he's the one you usually share (tried a couple of those, it's terrible), but this ICJ isn't much different, I listened to the first 10 minutes or so, and he just omits any part of that history that doesn't fit the speaker's opinion, and as a result putting many of his arguments out of context.
Look, you know my opinions by now. The the occupation must end, the Nakba displacement was to a large extend premeditated by the Jews of Palestine, Israel should seek a cease fire in Gaza, Israel does not do it more due to insane nationalists and politics than military goals, etc etc etc, much closer to you than to the average Israeli (not to mention the Bibi followers).
I just don't see the point, for example, in going back to that River to the sea discussion today, or the point in putting a half an hour out of context rant. Even if this guy has similar conclusions and a gorgeous robe.

[Marc Meakin]

Interested to see George Galloways speech on Gaza

[Jon O'Neill]

I was having a play around with some HMRC numbers to see what the impact of a completely different income tax structure would be.

I'm calling this the Jono proposal and my idea is a 20k tax free allowance, then 10% on all earnings to 50k, then 75% on all earnings above that.

- Everyone who earns up to 100k will be better off
- Those who earn between 20-50k will basically be getting a 10% net pay rise overnight
- This will raise £6bn for the treasury

Obviously this will hurt those who earn 100k+. Those in the 100k-150k bracket will on average have their net monthly wage reduced to a measly £5,300 per month.

Would it fly? I doubt it. Partly (mostly?) because the 1m people who would lose out in this system have a louder voice than the 30m who would benefit.

As well as the above, Capital Gains Tax being 20% is an absolute joke. It should be at least double.

[Gavin Chipper]

It could be argued that Capital Gains sometimes come in the form of risky investments (similar to gambling which is not taxed) so the tax on that should take into account the expected gains rather than just the actual gains. Though it would be very different for different investments so probably not workable.

[Marc Meakin]

I've noticed that the first minister of the home nations tick a lot of the diversity boxes and gender (in the case of Norther Ireland.
Isn't it time The Tea Shop was a first minister of colour

[Fiona T]

Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

[Elliott Mellor]

I've noticed that the first minister of the home nations tick a lot of the diversity boxes and gender (in the case of Norther Ireland.
Isn't it time The Tea Shop was a first minister of colour

I stared at this for a while, but I'm still lost as to what it means.

[Callum Todd]

Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

[Gavin Chipper]

I've noticed that the first minister of the home nations tick a lot of the diversity boxes and gender (in the case of Norther Ireland.
Isn't it time The Tea Shop was a first minister of colour

I stared at this for a while, but I'm still lost as to what it means.

He means the Taoiseach. But anyway it seems obvious you shouldn't be picking people because of their colour.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

Because Nike have been marketing it (at a rip-off price too) as "look how woke we are", which is entirely self-defeating.

Now do that with the US or Saudi flags, Nike. I beg you.

[Elliott Mellor]

Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

Whenever something like this dominates the headlines, it's usually to distract from something else. Rishi and co drum up a lot of hype about a complete non-issue, to distract from their colossal failings and so they can put out a message of "putting British values before wokeism", which wins them a few votes from the idiots out there daft enough to lap up their crap. Keir Starmer has fallen in to the trap of giving his input on it when he should have just ignored it, which was probably what they intended.

Anyone who actually cares about this really needs to give their head a wobble. We've got millions in poverty and the thing politicians care about is a tiny flag on a football shirt.

[Mark James]

I've noticed that the first minister of the home nations tick a lot of the diversity boxes and gender (in the case of Norther Ireland.
Isn't it time The Tea Shop was a first minister of colour

I stared at this for a while, but I'm still lost as to what it means.

He means the Taoiseach. But anyway it seems obvious you shouldn't be picking people because of their colour.

The most recent Taoiseach was multiracial and gay so I think the diversity box was well ticked.

[Gavin Chipper]

Why are politicians expressing opinions about the design of a football shirt?

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

Whenever something like this dominates the headlines, it's usually to distract from something else. Rishi and co drum up a lot of hype about a complete non-issue, to distract from their colossal failings and so they can put out a message of "putting British values before wokeism", which wins them a few votes from the idiots out there daft enough to lap up their crap. Keir Starmer has fallen in to the trap of giving his input on it when he should have just ignored it, which was probably what they intended.

Anyone who actually cares about this really needs to give their head a wobble. We've got millions in poverty and the thing politicians care about is a tiny flag on a football shirt.

I wouldn't let Starmer off the hook by saying he's fallen into a trap. He's shown his colours many times. He's not a force for good

[Elliott Mellor]

I really don't get the big hoo-ha about that cross thing on the England shirt. Total non issue, even at a football/design level, never mind social/political. One of the most acute examples of the depressing tendency for trivial obsessions to temporarily dominate the political news cycle in recent memory. Has anyone here recently met any real person who actually gives the slightest semblance of a fuck about this issue?

Whenever something like this dominates the headlines, it's usually to distract from something else. Rishi and co drum up a lot of hype about a complete non-issue, to distract from their colossal failings and so they can put out a message of "putting British values before wokeism", which wins them a few votes from the idiots out there daft enough to lap up their crap. Keir Starmer has fallen in to the trap of giving his input on it when he should have just ignored it, which was probably what they intended.

Anyone who actually cares about this really needs to give their head a wobble. We've got millions in poverty and the thing politicians care about is a tiny flag on a football shirt.

I wouldn't let Starmer off the hook by saying he's fallen into a trap. He's shown his colours many times. He's not a force for good

Oh for sure I don't think he's all roses. But from a strategic point of view, he'd have been far better off ignoring it.

[Gavin Chipper]

Would the last person defending Israel please turn off the lights.

[Tal Lessner]

I was talking with a friend of mine a couple of days ago, following an argument we had (mostly him, I give up on idiots after one message) with other members of some Formula 1 Whatsapp group following Hamilton latest Gaza comments. He was considered there self hating, anti Israeli, disgusting etc, just for stating the obvious, that there is a lot of suffering in Gaza, many innocent victims, and that Israel uses excessive force on many occasions.

After he gave up, we switched to messaging privately, how we both get a lot of negative responses not only from Israelis who consider our opinions anti-Israeli, but also for stating the same opinions with people condemning Israel. The main problem in this discussion (and the reason I started commenting here a few weeks ago), is that most people choose a side, and completely disregard any complexity or facts that might undermine their strong opinion. It's very easy today since most people just choose their information sources based on their opinions, regardless of how reliable and complete the info they get.

This identity politics really ruins any chance of actual discussion, people think that if one agrees with 90% or 95% of opinions on one side, they must be ALL IN, all the time, and agree even with the lunacy and ignorance of the remaining 10%.

Regardless (just that this is the first time somebody commented here since I had this talk with that friend a week ago), the attack on the WCK is indefensible. It could (and probably is) be attributed to the fact that in any war in history there were such erroneous attacks, but the IDF in too many occasions is very trigger happy.

[Gavin Chipper]

Sure, and I wonder if you include me in that "all in" thing based on things said earlier. But I absolutely do not support Hamas. I criticise Israel in particular because the UK and a lot of western countries support it and there is (though getting less so) disagreement and debate over whether their actions are acceptable. And obviously the extent of what they have done far outweighs Hamas's capabilities.

On identity politics more broadly, there are "left" views and "right" views on a multitude of seemingly unrelated topics, and quite often people do just seem to have the view of their tribe on each one.

[Marc Meakin]

Would the last person defending Israel please turn off the lights.

Never would defend Benni

[Tal Lessner]

Sure, and I wonder if you include me in that "all in" thing based on things said earlier. But I absolutely do not support Hamas. I criticise Israel in particular because the UK and a lot of western countries support it and there is (though getting less so) disagreement and debate over whether their actions are acceptable. And obviously the extent of what they have done far outweighs Hamas's capabilities.

On identity politics more broadly, there are "left" views and "right" views on a multitude of seemingly unrelated topics, and quite often people do just seem to have the view of their tribe on each one.

Yes Gavin, I absolutely include you here. I'll refrain from all the specific examples to not bring back old arguments.

But in general, I'm left (radical left, both socially/economically and on the Israeli political scale in relation to Palestine). And I'm well aware that the insane opinions resulting from identity politics are much more insane and much more damaging coming from the right.

But then you look at shit like this from the left side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jBHvx7POz8
How hard is it to say that a call for genocide is hate speech and harassment regardless of context? How ridiculously insane do you have to be (and these are deans of three ivy league universities!)

or how much of an idiot do you have to be to pop this question out of your mouth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4lzBS6saAs

[Tal Lessner]

Would the last person defending Israel please turn off the lights.

Never would defend Benni

Until I got to this forum, I didn't know you gentiles refer to Bibi as Benni.

I just refer to him as "that insane guy who holds Israel hostage and will continue shitting everything up until he dies (hopefully tomorrow)". Name a bit long, but quite catchy.

[Gavin Chipper]

Sure, and I wonder if you include me in that "all in" thing based on things said earlier.

Yes Gavin, I absolutely include you here. I'll refrain from all the specific examples to not bring back old arguments.

That's fine because I also consider you to simplistically put people into a category rather than addressing their points or attempting to understand where they are coming from, meaning that you often wildly miss the point. I will also refrain from all the specific examples to not bring back old arguments.

[Tal Lessner]

I think I addressed these points, and was quite specific what bothered me about them, otherwise you wouldn't have thought I was including you there. I understand where you're coming from also. I just think that some of your comments are outrageous while intentionally ignoring key facts.

And that's the problem here, because it's so easy to justifiably criticise Israel without them.

[Marc Meakin]

Would the last person defending Israel please turn off the lights.

Never would defend Benni

Until I got to this forum, I didn't know you gentiles refer to Bibi as Benni.

I just refer to him as "that insane guy who holds Israel hostage and will continue shitting everything up until he dies (hopefully tomorrow)". Name a bit long, but quite catchy.

Well my mum was Jewish so I don't consider myself a gentile but a mudblood, Jew at best

I say Benni as I'm don't always spell his surname right

[Tal Lessner]

Well my mum was Jewish so I don't consider myself a gentile but a mudblood, Jew at best

I say Benni as I'm don't always spell his surname right

Ignore the gentile thingie, was just wondering about the Benni name, considering everybody in Israel refers to him as Bibi, also in the US.
Just use the nickname Obama administration officials gave him (Chickenshit).

[Mark James]

But then you look at shit like this from the left side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jBHvx7POz8
How hard is it to say that a call for genocide is hate speech and harassment regardless of context? How ridiculously insane do you have to be (and these are deans of three ivy league universities!)

https://youtu.be/dwz75IStWGE?si=mqCRjROogyKC-3T1

[Tal Lessner]

But then you look at shit like this from the left side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jBHvx7POz8
How hard is it to say that a call for genocide is hate speech and harassment regardless of context? How ridiculously insane do you have to be (and these are deans of three ivy league universities!)

https://youtu.be/dwz75IStWGE?si=mqCRjROogyKC-3T1

How is any of this relevant to the fact that three Ivy League deans are too stupid to say that a call for genocide is hate speech?

[Mark James]

But then you look at shit like this from the left side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jBHvx7POz8
How hard is it to say that a call for genocide is hate speech and harassment regardless of context? How ridiculously insane do you have to be (and these are deans of three ivy league universities!)

https://youtu.be/dwz75IStWGE?si=mqCRjROogyKC-3T1

How is any of this relevant to the fact that three Ivy League deans are too stupid to say that a call for genocide is hate speech?

The clip agrees with you. They acknowledge the deans' response was poor. But there's more to the clip that might interest people on this forum.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think I addressed these points, and was quite specific what bothered me about them, otherwise you wouldn't have thought I was including you there. I understand where you're coming from also. I just think that some of your comments are outrageous while intentionally ignoring key facts.

And that's the problem here, because it's so easy to justifiably criticise Israel without them.

Well among other things, you posted this:

But I think I have a problem with your messages justifying the horrible people on the other side. Albeit downplaying the 7.10 massacre (earlier), or trying to justify calls for the extermination of Israel (From the river to the sea). Just because some idiots or outright horrible people are on your side (there are too many on either side), doesn't mean you need to justify them.

Which is just bullshit.

[Gavin Chipper]

https://youtu.be/dwz75IStWGE?si=mqCRjROogyKC-3T1

How is any of this relevant to the fact that three Ivy League deans are too stupid to say that a call for genocide is hate speech?

The clip agrees with you. They acknowledge the deans' response was poor. But there's more to the clip that might interest people on this forum.

It is weird that they didn't just condemn calls for a genocide of Jews. They could have just done that and dealt with any further questions about might what constitute a call for genocide as they came.

In the other news, Conservative Alan Duncan has gone rogue in an LBC interview, calling out members of the Conservative party for supporting Israel, and is now under investigation from the party.

[Rhys Benjamin]

In the other news, Conservative Alan Duncan has gone rogue in an LBC interview, calling out members of the Conservative party for supporting Israel, and is now under investigation from the party.

Nice way to whitewash antisemitism here. He suggested British Lords, one of whom is Jewish, were doing Israel's bidding. We were rightly appalled when leftists made that allegation against Luciana Berger and it is equally appalling here.

Not quite appalling as Owen Jones's latest brain rot though, which is that Germany are only supporting Israel because of the Holocaust.

[Gavin Chipper]

In the other news, Conservative Alan Duncan has gone rogue in an LBC interview, calling out members of the Conservative party for supporting Israel, and is now under investigation from the party.

Nice way to whitewash antisemitism here. He suggested British Lords, one of whom is Jewish, were doing Israel's bidding. We were rightly appalled when leftists made that allegation against Luciana Berger and it is equally appalling here.

Not quite appalling as Owen Jones's latest brain rot though, which is that Germany are only supporting Israel because of the Holocaust.

Why do you assume it's anti-Semitism? Maybe he thinks that's what they're doing. If only one of them is Jewish, it doesn't suggest he's singling out Jews.

Germany are one of Israel's biggest supporters and supplier of arms. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that the reasons are historic.

But in both cases and indeed many others, whether they are factually right or wrong, just throwing out the accusation of anti-Semitism is simplistic, dangerous to democracy, and a cheap way to try and shut down discussion.

[Tal Lessner]

Not quite appalling as Owen Jones's latest brain rot though, which is that Germany are only supporting Israel because of the Holocaust.

Why appalling? It's quite true

[Marc Meakin]

Not quite appalling as Owen Jones's latest brain rot though, which is that Germany are only supporting Israel because of the Holocaust.

Why appalling? It's quite true

Lets be honest, Israel would not have the support it has if it wasn't for the collective guilt of the holocaust.

[Marc Meakin]

Amirite that all the 4 leaders of the home nations and also the Republic of Ireland were not elected by the people?

[Gavin Chipper]

Amirite that all the 4 leaders of the home nations and also the Republic of Ireland were not elected by the people?

We don't directly elect leaders though so I think it's less of a big deal than some people make out. It should be more about policies than personalities anyway.

[Ian Volante]

Amirite that all the 4 leaders of the home nations and also the Republic of Ireland were not elected by the people?

Well yes, that's how our systems work. We elect a local rep who then choose an overall leader from within their ranks.

[Tal Lessner]

I wonder about the logic behind the UK system though, I'm all for a parliamentary system where parliament elects the head of government. But what's the point of the constituencies? How is it fair that a party get 43% of votes but 56% MP seats, or 12% of the votes and only 1.7% of the MPs?

I get the point of such system 100 years ago, without mass communication putting the trust in a local representative.
The % of parliament seats should reflect a parties total nationwide support.

[Marc Meakin]

I wonder about the logic behind the UK system though, I'm all for a parliamentary system where parliament elects the head of government. But what's the point of the constituencies? How is it fair that a party get 43% of votes but 56% MP seats, or 12% of the votes and only 1.7% of the MPs?

I get the point of such system 100 years ago, without mass communication putting the trust in a local representative.
The % of parliament seats should reflect a parties total nationwide support.

We are enteruming the whelms of AV or PR
Gevin and others have spoken of on this very forum

[Gavin Chipper]

National level proportionality is hard to achieve without doing away with candidate-based voting. Democracy shouldn't just be about party brands. A compromise would be to have larger constituencies with five or six MPs to elect using a system like STV, which achieves PR without requiring candidates to stand for parties.

[Tal Lessner]

National level proportionality is hard to achieve without doing away with candidate-based voting. Democracy shouldn't just be about party brands. A compromise would be to have larger constituencies with five or six MPs to elect using a system like STV, which achieves PR without requiring candidates to stand for parties.

Why not the system they have in Germany for example. Having both constituency representatives, but then add more representatives from a national party list to meet the actual party voting ratio representation. This way each constituency has its representative in parliament, but the balance of power actually represents the parties' national vote rate.

edit: Meant a mechanism like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveling_seat

[Gavin Chipper]

Ideally, I wouldn't want to have any votes/seats that are specifically for a party, but that kind of mechanism isn't necessary terrible depending on how it's done.

As I understand it, in Germany, they vote for a candidate and a party. Constituency candidates are still elected using First Past the Post and then the rest of the seats awarded to parties to make the result proportional overall.

FPTP is a pretty terrible system, but changing that part for another single-winner system wouldn't need to break the overall mechanism. The party vote is still vote-for-one as I understand it, so votes can still get wasted if someone supports a smaller party.

[Marc Meakin]

I think come December or whenever Sunak decides to go to the country they will lose so many seats that they may try and get a groundswell going for in the future AV, the fib dems will back it too

[Ian Volante]

I think come December or whenever Sunak decides to go to the country they will lose so many seats that they may try and get a groundswell going for in the future AV, the fib dems will back it too

The Lib Dems would be idiots to support AV (like they were last time) as they've supported PR forever, and AV is a poor substitute. Tories are unlikely to ever go for it, they know they'll be back soon enough.

[Marc Meakin]

I think come December or whenever Sunak decides to go to the country they will lose so many seats that they may try and get a groundswell going for in the future AV, the fib dems will back it too

The Lib Dems would be idiots to support AV (like they were last time) as they've supported PR forever, and AV is a poor substitute. Tories are unlikely to ever go for it, they know they'll be back soon enough.

I don't share your optimism (?) about the Tories coming back soon.
I have feeling that the labour landslide might put 1997 in the shade with Rishi and a few more high ranking cabinet members losing their seats.

I think there might be a split within the the Tories in a similar way Labour did during the forming of the SDP.
No doubt Boris might lead the "gang of 4"

[Gavin Chipper]

Labour winning but with Starmer losing his seat might work for me.

[Ian Volante]

I think come December or whenever Sunak decides to go to the country they will lose so many seats that they may try and get a groundswell going for in the future AV, the fib dems will back it too

The Lib Dems would be idiots to support AV (like they were last time) as they've supported PR forever, and AV is a poor substitute. Tories are unlikely to ever go for it, they know they'll be back soon enough.

I don't share your optimism (?) about the Tories coming back soon.
I have feeling that the labour landslide might put 1997 in the shade with Rishi and a few more high ranking cabinet members losing their seats.

I think there might be a split within the the Tories in a similar way Labour did during the forming of the SDP.
No doubt Boris might lead the "gang of 4"

The remaining chancers will do whatever they need to do to pick up the pieces after the clear-out. The current system weighs on an incumbent government, and it's a shitshow for the foreseeable; the new government will need to work out how to be radical/undo some of the policy failures of the last decade with what little resource is available, but should be able to blame the current lot for a while at least. The Tories will just have to find a leader the majority of their MPs actually wants to support; like twenty years ago, it took a while to get to that stage after Labour smooshed them in 1997.

[Gavin Chipper]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

Fast forward a few years, and David Harewood says go for it!

[Marc Meakin]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

Fast forward a few years, and David Harewood says go for it!

Blackface in Shakespeare was much like men playing women's parts as women wernt allowed to act in those days and presumably black actors were not in abundance.
So I kinda disagree with blackface in this context but RDJ using blackface in Tropic Thunder is OK and was hilarious

[Gavin Chipper]

Is "brownface" or "blackface" intrinsically racist, or does intent and context matter?

Fast forward a few years, and David Harewood says go for it!

Blackface in Shakespeare was much like men playing women's parts as women wernt allowed to act in those days and presumably black actors were not in abundance.
So I kinda disagree with blackface in this context but RDJ using blackface in Tropic Thunder is OK and was hilarious

He appears to have changed his mind.

[Graeme Cole]

Fast forward a few years, and David Harewood says go for it!

Blackface in Shakespeare was much like men playing women's parts as women wernt allowed to act in those days and presumably black actors were not in abundance.
So I kinda disagree with blackface in this context but RDJ using blackface in Tropic Thunder is OK and was hilarious

He appears to have changed his mind.

To some extent the original article's headline seems to have taken his quote out of context.

His quote ("I say, if you want to black it up, have at it, man. It’d better be good, or else you’re gonna get laughed off the stage. But knock yourself out!") was fairly described in the article as "Harewood said he would not have a problem with a white actor using blackface - but he also implied it would be unlikely to be successful or meet with today's audience expectations".

However, as is often the case with these things, the headline then slapped on the top of the article ("Harewood says actors should be allowed to use blackface") was an oversimplification, written for engagement and clicks rather than to provide a fair summary.