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.
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.
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:50 pm
Not quite appalling as Owen Jones's latest brain rot though, which is that Germany are only supporting Israel because of the Holocaust.
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:50 pm
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 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:12 am
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.
Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:12 am
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.
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.
Tal Lessner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:00 pm
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
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.
Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:07 pm
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.
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.
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
Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:53 am
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 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:53 am
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"
Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 9:53 am
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.
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
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
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
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.
All the brouhaha about fake stamps at the moment seems like yet another instance of the Royal Mail failing to address the root cause of a problem.
If they really wanted to crackdown on this, instead of trying to fine the receiver £5, they could put a letter through asking them to contact the sender and ask where they got the stamp. Have an online portal where people can submit establishments that have sold fake stamps, and then target those establishments. Any place selling fake stamps then has to purchase all stamps directly from the Royal Mail.
Ideally everywhere would have to anyway, but implementing that would be logistically difficult at least in the short term.
Don't think this recent ICC development will help much, but hopefully will get some international (mostly American) pressure on this weak, crazy, easily pressured excuse of a leader to end the massacre in Gaza, reach a ceasefire agreement and return the hostages.
