c4countdown

My ten cents.
Gay couples getting married i dont have a problem with but why would you want a church wedding when the bible is full of homophobic rhetoric

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:24 pm wait until you find out about the word gay.

"Gay means happy, a pussy is a cat; a shag is a seabird and that is that."

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:25 am

Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:53 am

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 7:00 am I voted "No" on gay marriage

Just to slightly deviate from the topic at hand, might one enquire why you voted "no"?

No problem.

I was ashamed that same sex marriage was being pushed for, that it made its way onto the political agenda, and very disappointed that many gay people were campaigning for it as though it were an advancement of gay rights. Personally I think it is a backward step... and a rather petulant one at that. (I did consider organising a "Gay Shame Parade" to commiserate the referendum win...)

Marriage, for the most part in most cultures, is understood to be something that formalises the sexual union from which offspring can arise. It is very clear. If you are a married man, you have a wife. Simple. The introduction of SSM just confuses that language... a man says he's married, you are still unsure as to whether he has a wife. And many people will quietly hold this against the gay community for needlessly ruining the language. It was a false step forward. In truth, by insisting on redefining the word "marriage", gay people made themselves new enemies who previously would not have had an issue.

That is the meat of my objection...

So what you're saying is that you think semantics is more important than voting to expand human rights and abolishing discriminatory laws, and that's even discounting the fact that language is a fluid, evolving thing. So, by your logic, someone or something should only be described as laconic if it comes, or they come, from the region of Laconia in Southern Greece, right? We wouldn't want to confuse these hypothetical people you conjure up: they might then believe that someone they know who is concise or abrupt is not from Liverpool, Dublin, Cornwall etc., but from ancient Sparta itself.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:35 pm Pretty awful human being Priti Patel has been found to be bullying, but Boris Johnson just tries to make it go away.

Pretty awful human being Priti Patel could face a contempt of court charge.

As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:27 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Paddy Ashdown, the Labour Party, or the burning of the Reichstag.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:27 pm

Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:27 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Paddy Ashdown, the Labour Party, or the burning of the Reichstag.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Michael Schumacher, Tetris, glass, or the Andromeda Galaxy.

I'm going for a mixture of Baby Spice Emma Bunton, Benny Hill and Grigori Rasputin.

My options include Pat Robertson, Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Roger Whittaker, William Shatner, the Stamp Act or the Arab League. That is an eclectic mix, though admittedly not on the same level as Gevin's.

Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:27 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga is deciding whether to adopt the politics of Neil Kinnock or Thomas Carey.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

My choice is between (t)he valiant Thomas Hobbes, Pharrell Williams, or the death sentence of Ethel and Julius Rosenburg.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 10:10 pm

Thomas Carey wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:27 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

I guess it's time for me to decide whether I want to model my political views after Neil Kinnock or Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga is deciding whether to adopt the politics of Neil Kinnock or Thomas Carey.

Given she performed at the inauguration I think we have our answer.

Matt Rutherford wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 11:18 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:34 pm As well as many political opinions, I share a birthday with Tom Harwood. Which would be nice if I didn't have a huge inferiority complex.

My choice is between (t)he valiant Thomas Hobbes, Pharrell Williams, or the death sentence of Ethel and Julius Rosenburg.

Geoff Hoon or Mark Reckless for me. Or Henry VI.

For me its Nicholas II of Russia, Pope John Paul II or Tina Fey

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:02 pm For me its Nicholas II of Russia, Pope John Paul II or Tina Fey

That would be my perfect dinner party.

Leaked security footage from inside Buckingham Palace. The bit relevant to the current news is from about 1:26.

Replying to the "gay marriage" topic has been on my to-do list for a while now (almost 2 months) but better late than never.

My objection to the introduction of SSM here, was to do with the language... but moreso to do with muddying the clarity of the concept itself.

---------------------------------------

Fiona asks:
"Why is male/female the correct definition for marriage?"

That is similar to asking "Why does feline describe a cat.. can it not be canine if it likes?" Simple truth here, is while there is nothing wrong with dogs, they're not cats. Marriage is about the celebration of a certain sexual act... that one whereby the correct biological parts can be used to potentially produce offspring. Extending that to include gay unions, fundamentally changes what 'marriage' means.

---------------------------------------

Ian asks:
"What quality of a person would turn into a homophobe over a slight increase in the potential meanings of a particular word?"

Good people. Normal people. People who you know and respect. That's who.
It is not just the *one* change of a word's meaning... It is many many small things, that can build up over time. Life is made up of small things. Small things matter. If gay people as a group are seen to be always "fighting" for perceived rights / looking for special treatment / moaning / playing the victim... people (who otherwise have not had an issue with gay people) will become exasperated, and possibly even start viewing the gay community as an 'enemy' group. I have seen this happen, and it is rather disturbing.

---------------------------------------

James suggests:
"You think semantics is more important than voting to expand human rights and abolishing discriminatory laws."

Gays demanding to usurp a word that has nothing to do with them, would not qualify as "expanding human rights" or "abolishing discriminatory laws". It was indeed a regressive step, and a sad day to be gay.

---------------------------------------

Graeme intelligently posted the following:
"This is like complaining about the invention of mobile phones because when someone says "I have a phone" it's no longer clear whether they mean a mobile or a landline."

That is a great point. I had to think about this one. Yes, it is a great comparison for how the meaning of a word can expand and how that is not a big deal. I get you. But my counter argument here is that a phrase like e.g. "I am a happily married man" (pre-gay marriage) would instantly impart a lot of important social information about the person, that has no real equivalent in the phone example.


He also posed the conundrum:
"So if a straight couple can't or don't want to have children, should they be prevented from marrying?"

My take here: those couples get a free pass on account of possessing the correct set of complimentary sex organs that can allow conception, whether or not that is desirable or possible for the couple in question.


He pointed out that:
"Prior to same sex marriage becoming legal, someone could equally well say "I am in a relationship", giving no information about gender. I don't see how marriage is any different."

And that is a fine way to be mysterious about your relationship, should you wish to be. Marriage has always (no exceptions) had a gendered aspect to it, until recently when an overreach by a minority group managed to get it changed under the guise of 'equality'.


Another good point he brought up was:
"I wouldn't even call it a redefinition. It's still marriage, it still means the same thing, it's just opened up to a wider range of people."

How wide should the range be?
Man and boy?
Woman and chocolate?
Man and pack of jumbo hot dogs?
Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples?
Brother and sister?

If we are talking 'discrimination', there is plenty of discrimination still going on.

The sexual union of a 'man and man' or of a 'woman and woman' is fundamentally different from the union between a 'man and woman'. Different things deserve different names.

Grabs popcorn..........

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:21 am A bunch of stuff.

https://youtu.be/_n5E7feJHw0

That is similar to asking "Why does feline describe a cat.. can it not be canine if it likes?"

No it's not. And feline doesn't just describe cats. It can describe things that are cat-like. Words have can have multiple meanings and their meanings and uses can change.

Extending that to include gay unions, fundamentally changes what 'marriage' means.

So fucking what? What's the big deal if it changes?

Good people. Normal people. People who you know and respect.

Since you love dictionary definitions, what's a "normal" person? And if someone gets upset over the definition of marriage being changed I would not respect them.

It is not just the *one* change of a word's meaning... It is many many small things, that can build up over time. Life is made up of small things. Small things matter. If gay people as a group are seen to be always "fighting" for perceived rights / looking for special treatment / moaning / playing the victim... people (who otherwise have not had an issue with gay people) will become exasperated, and possibly even start viewing the gay community as an 'enemy' group. I have seen this happen, and it is rather disturbing.

Speaking of dictionary definitions, this is practically a dictionary definition of a reactionary. This has been the excuse against every social improvement that has ever happened. It's the slippery slope fallacy and yes, it's disturbing how easily some people will get upset at progress. We do not need to bow down to these people.

But my counter argument here is that a phrase like e.g. "I am a happily married man" (pre-gay marriage) would instantly impart a lot of important social information about the person, that has no real equivalent in the phone example

How is knowing the gender of anyone's partner important? Also, maybe they're lying. You haven't learned anything important from the phrase "I am a happily married man".

How wide should the range be?
Man and boy?
Woman and chocolate?
Man and pack of jumbo hot dogs?
Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples?
Brother and sister?

You are gay man correct? Do you like to have sex? Do you like to have the ability to have sex legally? Because this and some of your other points would have been the same arguments used against decriminalising homosexuality. It's more slippery slope nonsense.

With regards man and boy the boy cannot consent. And do you really want to be going down the route of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia?

The day a chocolate bar or a pack of jumbo hotdogs can say "I do", sure I'll be all for extending the definition.

Throuples, Quadruples, Quintuples? Again, sure why not. If all are consenting don't see the harm.

Brothers and sisters? Again, don't really care. Incest laws rather than marriage laws will prevent them consumating but if they wanted to get married for tax break purposes and they're consenting who cares.

These aren't gotchas. They were nonsense arguments in 2015 when the marriage equality act passed in Ireland (in fact they've been garbage long before that). They couldn't convince people then and they won't now.

Gays demanding to usurp a word that has nothing to do with them, would not qualify as "expanding human rights" or "abolishing discriminatory laws". It was indeed a regressive step, and a sad day to be gay.

The fact that you think that is what's really sad.

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:14 pm The fact that you think that is what's really sad.

Thanks Mark, you've saved me a lot of what feels like unnecessary effort to say these things.

As a family member said when the equal-marriage bill passed, with a slight paraphrasing, "Ireland really grew up today".

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:22 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:14 pm The fact that you think that is what's really sad.

Thanks Mark, you've saved me a lot of what feels like unnecessary effort to say these things.

As a family member said when the equal-marriage bill passed, with a slight paraphrasing, "Ireland really grew up today".

No worries Ian, your thanks is much appreciated.

There's a lot I'm not happy about with Ireland and our current government, and I'm no fan of blind patriotism or the concept of being proud of one's country but between the marriage equality and the abortion referendum, they were great days to celebrate and give ourselves a wee pat on the back.

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:40 pm

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:22 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:14 pm The fact that you think that is what's really sad.

Thanks Mark, you've saved me a lot of what feels like unnecessary effort to say these things.

As a family member said when the equal-marriage bill passed, with a slight paraphrasing, "Ireland really grew up today".

No worries Ian, your thanks is much appreciated.

There's a lot I'm not happy about with Ireland and our current government, and I'm no fan of blind patriotism or the concept of being proud of one's country but between the marriage equality and the abortion referendum, they were great days to celebrate and give ourselves a wee pat on the back.

Is contraception still a hot topic though?

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 11:49 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:40 pm

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 9:22 pm

Thanks Mark, you've saved me a lot of what feels like unnecessary effort to say these things.

As a family member said when the equal-marriage bill passed, with a slight paraphrasing, "Ireland really grew up today".

No worries Ian, your thanks is much appreciated.

There's a lot I'm not happy about with Ireland and our current government, and I'm no fan of blind patriotism or the concept of being proud of one's country but between the marriage equality and the abortion referendum, they were great days to celebrate and give ourselves a wee pat on the back.

Is contraception still a hot topic though?

I suspect it is for stronger-adhering Catholics, not so much otherwise. That said, I don't live there, so I don't pick up on the nuances of public debate; however I get the impression that there are bigger things to worry about most of the time for most people.

The old cartoons of Mohmammed thing has made the news again.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:08 pm The old cartoons of Mohmammed thing has made the news again.

I nearly lost my job during the Charlie Hebdo terroism
I suggested that muslims lightened up.
2 fellow employees complained to my supervisor and i was reprimanded

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:08 pm The old cartoons of Mohmammed thing has made the news again.

My old school, that, although now it's an academy, it's trying desperately to trade on its reputation as far as I can tell.

The complaint was made in the regular way by parents contacting the school directly, the people at the gates were a rent-a-mob drummed up later, my contacts tell me. I suspect that much was obvious anyway.

I'm not reading the whole 258-page thing, but the findings of the race report are interesting.

Anyway, on that, while you obviously shouldn't take the report's findings as the final objective truth, I think it's good that it is fighting against the worrying trend that for emotive subjects, statistical and scientific evidence isn't needed when we have a load of anecdotes.

It's not right to conclude that the whole country is systemically racist (or indeed sexist) without proper analysis.

And terms like "white privilege" (and "whitesplaining" and indeed "mansplaining") are lazy ways of not having to engage with the actual points people make.

The fact the report exists is evidence of systemic racism.

They made the report to investigate whether the prima facie evidence had a more solid grounding, yes. And there is systemic racism, but more so in some areas than others.

No. They made the report to affirm a preordained stance that Britain is not institutionally racist and they did so with cherry picked data as well as a misunderstanding and frankly strawmanning concept of what systemic racism is. The report has been criticised by actual historians and academics who have been using statistical and scientific evidence to measure the effects of systemic racism for years. The idea that these concepts are built on anecdotes is a myth.

Also, can you give an example of a point someone might make that you feel is lazily dismissed using the term "white privilege". Do you think white privilege isn't a thing?

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:30 pmAlso, can you give an example of a point someone might make that you feel is lazily dismissed using the term "white privilege". Do you think white privilege isn't a thing?

Not off the top of my head, but I could let you know next time it comes up.

It depends on what you mean by a "thing". I just don't think it's a good term for anything that exists even though you could call having less racism against you "white privilege". It sort of implies that it's some sort of "extra bonus thing" that perhaps people don't deserve rather than the baseline that everyone should expect. Edit - It's racism that's the "thing".

Someone my age is very often guilty of 'unconcious bias'
Funnily enough its mainly due to being chivalrous lie holding open doors for a woman or offering to carry something that looks heavy.
Also casual racism crops up.
But basically that applies to anyone who watched and enjoyed the likes of Love Thy Neighbour, Rising Damp abd Mind Your Language, in the 1970s

It just won't go away. Are Boris Johnson's days numbered?

Well, given we already know that:

- the civil service have a history of leaking and are untrustworthy
- Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings were pushing for a lockdown in September
- Boris has flat-out denied it on camera

I think we can put this one to bed. It stinks of a civil service stitch-up to me. And if you think that wouldn't happen, remember plebgate, when the Met tried to stitch up the chief whip, so it can happen.

There'll almost certainly be an inquiry.

I reckon Johnson did say it, given that:

- my horoscope today said to be wary of those with too much influence over my life
- horoscopes are generally trustworthy
- Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in horoscopes and he's getting more unhinged by the day

And if you don't believe me about horoscopes, well, the other day it said my life was going to take a turn for the better, and sure enough, when I needed my drink put through the self-service till at Sainsbury's that evening, it was the hottest member of staff that served me.

Phil H wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:14 pm I reckon Johnson did say it, given that:

- my horoscope today said to be wary of those with too much influence over my life
- horoscopes are generally trustworthy
- Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in horoscopes and he's getting more unhinged by the day

And if you don't believe me about horoscopes, well, the other day it said my life was going to take a turn for the better, and sure enough, when I needed my drink put through the self-service till at Sainsbury's that evening, it was the hottest member of staff that served me.

Horoscopes are bollocks.
Mind you, you should expect me to say that, me being a Taurus and all

I watch Boris Johnson through a horrorscope.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:

- the civil service are untrustworthy

As a member of HM Civil Service, bugger off with your sweeping nonsense, frankly.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:

- the civil service have a history of leaking and are untrustworthy
- Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings were pushing for a lockdown in September
- Boris has flat-out denied it on camera

I think we can put this one to bed. It stinks of a civil service stitch-up to me. And if you think that wouldn't happen, remember plebgate, when the Met tried to stitch up the chief whip, so it can happen.

There'll almost certainly be an inquiry.

Remember it's the refurbishment thing as well, so he's under attack from two angles at the same time.

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:01 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:

- the civil service are untrustworthy

As a member of HM Civil Service, bugger off with your sweeping nonsense, frankly.

Boris Johnson is more untrustworthy in any case.

I bet he wished that he'd put his foot down on using John Lewis furniture

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:01 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:

- the civil service are untrustworthy

As a member of HM Civil Service, bugger off with your sweeping nonsense, frankly.

They have form.

With Boris now having, very clearly, said "no" to the bodies comment in the House, surely that settles it. You can't knowingly lie to the house - everyone knows that. The government also know that if he is dragged back to apologise, it will be more humiliating. If you're going to lie to the House, you obfuscate and don't give a straight answer. You don't say "no" outright.

The BBC have now retracted the Dyson story from last week, but a lie has gone halfway around the world before the truth has had a chance to put its pants on. Smear first, report facts later.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 11:05 pm

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:01 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:07 pm Well, given we already know that:

- the civil service are untrustworthy

As a member of HM Civil Service, bugger off with your sweeping nonsense, frankly.

They have form.

I refer you to the word 'sweeping'. We aren't all leaking, in fact the vast majority of us are fair and balanced in our dealings, having signed up to the Civil Service code, Official Secrets Act etc etc.

It may suit your agenda to tar us all, but stick to the individuals rather than the lot of us, thanks.

I don't care whether Boris said he would let the bodies pile up or not. I care that he actually let the bodies pile up.

Following the recent election results Corbyn needs to do the decent thing and step down as the former leader of the Labour Party.

Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:43 pm Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.

Zero context here.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 9:03 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:43 pm Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.

Zero context here.

"Shaun". "London".

Have a guess. Go on.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 9:13 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 9:03 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:43 pm Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.

Zero context here.

"Shaun". "London".

Have a guess. Go on.

I guessed it was the London Mayor thing but I had no idea who was standing. Someone called Shaun for the Tories it seems. Bailey apparently.

And herein lies the problem we have been battling for years.

In 2008 and 2012 everybody knew who Boris Johnson was. Even in 2016 everyone knew who Zac Goldsmith was. Even though we picked Shaun in 2018, we have struggled to get his name into the media, not helped by Sadiq Khan's seemingly nightly slot on BBC London whereas Shaun has had to scrap for every bit of airtime we can get for him. Only once purdah started did things get a bit better in this regard, but when the BBC seemingly fails to acknowledge your candidate, as the second-biggest party in the last election (2016), for 2.5 years, what can you do?

I would support Shaun Murphy for Mayor of London.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 6:05 am I would support Shaun Murphy for Mayor of London.

Have you ever seen Shaun Murphy and Count Binface in the same room? Hmm

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 7:29 pm Following the recent election results Corbyn needs to do the decent thing and step down as the former leader of the Labour Party.

Socialism is dead in the water the most famous one was crucified over 2000 years ago and Foot and Kinnock was crucified by the press.
To make matters worse we have a generation of voters born after Thatcher ruined the north.
See the by-election win for the Tories in Hartlepool for your proof.

Corbyn will not shake the ' racist' tag and wouldnt be welcomed back into the labour fold.
Lets be honest the last labour government was really Tory lite anyway.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 8:43 pm Shaun totally deserves to win - London needs a fresh start, after all - but if he does it will be the single most shocking thing I've ever seen in politics.

Next to the Tories winning Hartlepool for the first time since 1974

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat May 08, 2021 7:12 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 7:29 pm Following the recent election results Corbyn needs to do the decent thing and step down as the former leader of the Labour Party.

Socialism is dead in the water the most famous one was crucified over 2000 years ago and Foot and Kinnock was crucified by the press.
To make matters worse we have a generation of voters born after Thatcher ruined the north.
See the by-election win for the Tories in Hartlepool for your proof.

Corbyn will not shake the ' racist' tag and wouldnt be welcomed back into the labour fold.
Lets be honest the last labour government was really Tory lite anyway.

So you did realise that was joke about how Corbyn is being blamed for Labour's current disaster yeah?

What Hartlepool shows is that Corbyn's Labour was more popular than Starmer's. If the last Labour government was tory lite, the current iteration is tory. So why would anyone vote for them ahead of the tories. The tory share of the vote this time around wasn't much more than what they got previous times they came second. People didn't switch from Labour to Conservative they just didn't vote Labour.

Or there is something to be said when the government has been paying 11 million people their wages for the past year

What do people think of Nicola Sturgeon's claim that another independence referendum is a matter of when - not if? She's quite clear that it's the "democratic wishes of the Scottish people" to have this referendum. But is it so clear cut? The SNP won 64 out of 129 seats - just short of half of them - but using the 8 seats from the Greens - who also support a referendum - that gives them a majority. However, the Scottish Parliament alone does not decide on whether there is to be a referendum and a majority of seats desn't equal a majority of votes, so merely having a majority of seats isn't enough to a) force it through or b) claim that it is the democratic will of the Scottish people.

So what about the votes? According to this:

On the constituency vote, the three main parties that were backing Scotland staying in the UK won 50.4% of the vote. But on the list vote it was the three main parties that were supporting independence that were narrowly ahead with 50.1%.

Actually, I don't know how they vote in Scotland. I thought it was just single transferable vote, but from that it seems not. It appears they use the Additional Member System.

Well, it seems that from the vote it's not clear either way, and when you add in the fact that people weren't just voting on whether they wanted a another referendum, it's even less clear. You could argue either way for whether a referendum should happen, but it's definitely not as clear cut as Nicola Sturgeon likes to think it is.