Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Torquemada 1420]

I've been embroiled in the "coconut" debate before here, having used the term myself. And I'll state the position again. "Coconut" is not a racist term in its normal, contextual use. The term is used towards a person accused of betraying his race or culture

So it literally claims black people have immutable cultural characteristics connected to their race and must behave a certain way otherwise they are irredeemably not black and lesser (it's a pejorative). As you point out. It exactly fits the definition of racist then.

But we've already been over this, and you could be trolling.

The Tory party is a racist party (as well as classist but that's a separate issue here). Unless you disagree with that statement (in which case further discussion is pointless) then, as I've said before, if you join the Tories, you are subscribing to perpetuating those same racist values and policies. Coconut is a pejorative term used by blacks (primarily) for fellow blacks who have betrayed their cultural identity. In this context, the term is justified. Sure, there are shades of grey and calling someone a coconut because he didn't like reggae would probably be one.

You have used the old political trick of trying to cast absolutist frameworks over a debate in order to justify your stance. This has nothing to do with immutability nor "must behaves". There are general characteristics that make black people black ethnically, racially or culturally. It's not necessary for any of those to apply to 100% or even 90% of them for that to be so.

Rather like JMK, this is another instance of a white person taking the superior position of telling non whites what is and isn't racist to them. You are free to express an opinion but you don't get to dictate the terms to any of them.

[Hal Jordan]

Ms Truss’s leadership campaign donations have just dropped. Biggest contribution being £100k from the wife of a former BP executive.

Others include the wife of a private healthcare advisor, who found it in her heart to give £50k on two successive days, the CEO of a company that provides borehole equipment to, amongst others, fracking companies, Lance Forman's company and perennial donors the Bamfords.

[Paddington Bear]

Adding more supply to a market lowers prices. And if we produce more of said supply we can make money off of it, which pays for goods and services. Fracking is no silver bullet but it is better than reliance on Qatar

How much supply is going to have to be added to significantly lower the European gas price? In other words is the UK even capable of doing that? Because gas isn't used in the same quantities all year supply can also be added by building more storage, at the moment the UK is filling up European gas storage facilities during the summer and will buy it back in winter. There's no incentive for the private sector to build massive gas storage so that it can be filled up when gas is cheap and used (at that cheaper price) when it's expensive. Shell definitely wouldn't want that.

Not sure using the argument that adding supply lowers prices, then works that well with more money being made (you mean taxes?) from the UK's increased supply. In your model more supply is being sold, but it's cheaper than before.

Does the UK rely on Qatar for oil or gas? I thought the UK was mostly already self sufficient with imports mostly from Norway and the USA.

This problem seems entirely UK government created. Built gas power plants (quick and cheap), all the cheaply available gas in the UK and elsewhere is running out, which means more expensive energy either UK produced or imported if gas remains the main component in the UK energy mix and the ownership model/low state investment all remains the same. Which is what the Truss plan promises, just with more UK government debt to patch up the failed system.

More supply lowers prices. How much would noticeably lower them? I don't know, not an expert. What is clear is that by having more British based energy we:
1) Can have greater control of our own supply in the event protectionism descends
2) Can make money off of selling it that can be reinvested in our own economy rather than transferred to Norway/Qatar etc.

As I say, it's not a silver bullet but the central economics of energy production are pretty simple. Either you produce your own or you buy it off of others and make yourself comparatively poorer as a result.

[Hal Jordan]

Anyway, the Queen's "under medical supervision" at Balmoral, so batten down the hatches.

[shaggy]

Adding more supply to a market lowers prices. And if we produce more of said supply we can make money off of it, which pays for goods and services. Fracking is no silver bullet but it is better than reliance on Qatar

How much supply is going to have to be added to significantly lower the European gas price? In other words is the UK even capable of doing that? Because gas isn't used in the same quantities all year supply can also be added by building more storage, at the moment the UK is filling up European gas storage facilities during the summer and will buy it back in winter. There's no incentive for the private sector to build massive gas storage so that it can be filled up when gas is cheap and used (at that cheaper price) when it's expensive. Shell definitely wouldn't want that.

Not sure using the argument that adding supply lowers prices, then works that well with more money being made (you mean taxes?) from the UK's increased supply. In your model more supply is being sold, but it's cheaper than before.

Does the UK rely on Qatar for oil or gas? I thought the UK was mostly already self sufficient with imports mostly from Norway and the USA.

This problem seems entirely UK government created. Built gas power plants (quick and cheap), all the cheaply available gas in the UK and elsewhere is running out, which means more expensive energy either UK produced or imported if gas remains the main component in the UK energy mix and the ownership model/low state investment all remains the same. Which is what the Truss plan promises, just with more UK government debt to patch up the failed system.

Not aware of any plans to buy back gas from Europe in the winter. UK has delivery contracts in place to meet UK demand, the only reason they are shipping LNG to Europe is because Europe has insufficient LNG terminals to import shipped product.

[_Os_]

There are general characteristics that make black people black ethnically, racially or culturally.

What was that about absolutist frameworks? You're conflating something which is immutable (racial characteristics), with something which is by definition changeable (culture). Which is what the coconut pejorative does too. There is no general cultural characteristic of black people, Africa alone has 1.2bn people and they don't all live within one culture. I haven't met many black British people that speak Zulu and worship their ancestors.

Rather like JMK, this is another instance of a white person taking the superior position of telling non whites what is and isn't racist to them. You are free to express an opinion but you don't get to dictate the terms to any of them.

The "stay in your separate lane" logic of apartheid. Guess what Afrikaners were told by other Afrikaners when they dared to challenge anything back in the day, they were told they weren't Afrikaners and were really English or traitors. I'm sure they were very glad almost no one said to them "nah, you're okay be whoever you want to be".

[tabascoboy]

Adding more supply to a market lowers prices. And if we produce more of said supply we can make money off of it, which pays for goods and services. Fracking is no silver bullet but it is better than reliance on Qatar

How much supply is going to have to be added to significantly lower the European gas price? In other words is the UK even capable of doing that? Because gas isn't used in the same quantities all year supply can also be added by building more storage, at the moment the UK is filling up European gas storage facilities during the summer and will buy it back in winter. There's no incentive for the private sector to build massive gas storage so that it can be filled up when gas is cheap and used (at that cheaper price) when it's expensive. Shell definitely wouldn't want that.

Not sure using the argument that adding supply lowers prices, then works that well with more money being made (you mean taxes?) from the UK's increased supply. In your model more supply is being sold, but it's cheaper than before.

Does the UK rely on Qatar for oil or gas? I thought the UK was mostly already self sufficient with imports mostly from Norway and the USA.

This problem seems entirely UK government created. Built gas power plants (quick and cheap), all the cheaply available gas in the UK and elsewhere is running out, which means more expensive energy either UK produced or imported if gas remains the main component in the UK energy mix and the ownership model/low state investment all remains the same. Which is what the Truss plan promises, just with more UK government debt to patch up the failed system.

Not aware of any plans to buy back gas from Europe in the winter. UK has delivery contracts in place to meet UK demand, the only reason they are shipping LNG to Europe is because Europe has insufficient LNG terminals to import shipped product.

Recent Torygraph article claims we have to buy back, unless this is just "big, bad greedy EU " made up story
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... ed-europe/

Britain will be forced to buy back gas exported to Europe to keep the lights on this winter after supplying about 15pc of supplies stored on the Continent.

The UK's lack of storage means that gas which was shipped to terminals this side of the Channel and then piped abroad will have to be pumped back into the country as temperatures fall.

Unprecedented volumes of the fuel have been sent to the European Union via the UK in recent months, as countries race to fill up their storage sites after Russia strangled supplies.

With little storage of its own, Britain typically buys gas back from the Continent during winter.

This year, it will leave the country exposed to higher prices and market havoc if Russia goes further.

Peter Thompson, a gas market expert at the consultancy Baringa, said: “Effectively the UK’s market stores gas in continental Europe storage, and then it's pulled back out in the winter.

“That's normally what happens. But I think there is a question entering this winter - there’s no business as usual position.

[_Os_]

More supply lowers prices. How much would noticeably lower them? I don't know, not an expert. What is clear is that by having more British based energy we:
1) Can have greater control of our own supply in the event protectionism descends
2) Can make money off of selling it that can be reinvested in our own economy rather than transferred to Norway/Qatar etc.

As I say, it's not a silver bullet but the central economics of energy production are pretty simple. Either you produce your own or you buy it off of others and make yourself comparatively poorer as a result.

My gut feeling is just drilling more, with no state input (even if it's just storage infrastructure), isn't going to do much to the price. Not at all an expert either (I think this is Shaggy's area though?), I'm mostly going on the constant claims the easy stuff has been extracted from Scotland and there's only x years left.

Your point 1 is true. Your point 2 is much more contingent on what the UK government decides (ownership models, taxes etc), using the revenue to fund tax cuts then letting the market decide on the UK's future development is the preferred option in the UK and it means underdevelopment, arguably in the whole UK relative to peer nations over the last 40 years, much less to argue about on regional disparities within the UK.

[Torquemada 1420]

There are general characteristics that make black people black ethnically, racially or culturally.

What was that about absolutist frameworks? You're conflating something which is immutable (racial characteristics), with something which is by definition changeable (culture). Which is what the coconut pejorative does too. There is no general cultural characteristic of black people, Africa alone has 1.2bn people and they don't all live within one culture. I haven't met many black British people that speak Zulu and worship their ancestors.

Rather like JMK, this is another instance of a white person taking the superior position of telling non whites what is and isn't racist to them. You are free to express an opinion but you don't get to dictate the terms to any of them.

The "stay in your separate lane" logic of apartheid. Guess what Afrikaners were told by other Afrikaners when they dared to challenge anything back in the day, they were told they weren't Afrikaners and were really English or traitors. I'm sure they were very glad almost no one said to them "nah, you're okay be whoever you want to be".

You are wrong on both counts.

1) I'll repeat what I said before on this kinda subject. One of my (more militant, granted) Ghanaian friends Jennifer always used to say something like "White people invented racism. White people perpetuated racism (still do actually). White people don't now get the f**k to tell me what is and isn't racist too."

I can categorically tell you that probably all my black friends and relatives (pretty sure I have more than you and so a much larger sample size) , militant or not, will agree with the use of the term coconut for the black cabinet ministers in the earlier post. I'll put aside the Asian ones because coconut is not part of Asians' lexicon. So, who do you think is right? You or them?

2) You still don't get it. What apartheid was doing was using power and politics to create separation of wealth and power delineated by a combo of race, culture (primarily these 2) and class. The Tories are up to exactly the same game. It is the Tories who are pushing "stay in your separate lane" and anyone signing up to that manifesto is doing exactly the same. No amount of twisted logic, tautology or one sided intellectual idealism put forth by you is going to flip the debate to your side. Your gaping flaw is in the assertion in this line:
"Guess what Afrikaners were told by other Afrikaners when they dared to challenge anything back in the day.............."
because there, there were Afrikaaners seeking to change from within (though a minuscule number compared with what most safas would like us to believe today much in the same way that in France, everyone's ancestors were in the Resistance) WHEREAS these c**ts aren't attempting to change anything. Absolutely the reverse. They are trying to enforce the status quo whilst benefiting from it themselves. These are not change activists in the manner of your Afrikaaner martyr example at all. They are much more akin to the Jewish camp "guards" who aided the Nazis in their activities against their own people. And yeah, I know I just invoked Godwin's Law.

[Paddington Bear]

More supply lowers prices. How much would noticeably lower them? I don't know, not an expert. What is clear is that by having more British based energy we:
1) Can have greater control of our own supply in the event protectionism descends
2) Can make money off of selling it that can be reinvested in our own economy rather than transferred to Norway/Qatar etc.

As I say, it's not a silver bullet but the central economics of energy production are pretty simple. Either you produce your own or you buy it off of others and make yourself comparatively poorer as a result.

My gut feeling is just drilling more, with no state input (even if it's just storage infrastructure), isn't going to do much to the price. Not at all an expert either (I think this is Shaggy's area though?), I'm mostly going on the constant claims the easy stuff has been extracted from Scotland and there's only x years left.

Your point 1 is true. Your point 2 is much more contingent on what the UK government decides (ownership models, taxes etc), using the revenue to fund tax cuts then letting the market decide on the UK's future development is the preferred option in the UK and it means underdevelopment, arguably in the whole UK relative to peer nations over the last 40 years, much less to argue about on regional disparities within the UK.

Agreed on your response to point 2. With that said even tax cuts/discretionary spending etc would be a better use of UK plc's money than giving it to Qatar/Norway etc, despite it being a poor use of the revenue.

[_Os_]

You are wrong on both counts.

1) I'll repeat what I said before on this kinda subject. One of my (more militant, granted) Ghanaian friends Jennifer always used to say something like "White people invented racism. White people perpetuated racism (still do actually). White people don't now get the f**k to tell me what is and isn't racist too."

I can categorically tell you that probably all my black friends and relatives (pretty sure I have more than you and so a much larger sample size) , militant or not, will agree with the use of the term coconut for the black cabinet ministers in the earlier post. I'll put aside the Asian ones because coconut is not part of Asians' lexicon. So, who do you think is right? You or them?

2) You still don't get it. What apartheid was doing was using power and politics to create separation of wealth and power delineated by a combo of race, culture (primarily these 2) and class. The Tories are up to exactly the same game. It is the Tories who are pushing "stay in your separate lane" and anyone signing up to that manifesto is doing exactly the same. No amount of twisted logic, tautology or one sided intellectual idealism put forth by you is going to flip the debate to your side. Your gaping flaw is in the assertion in this line:
"Guess what Afrikaners were told by other Afrikaners when they dared to challenge anything back in the day.............."
because there, there were Afrikaaners seeking to change from within (though a minuscule number compared with what most safas would like us to believe today much in the same way that in France, everyone's ancestors were in the Resistance) WHEREAS these c**ts aren't attempting to change anything. Absolutely the reverse. They are trying to enforce the status quo whilst benefiting from it themselves. These are not change activists in the manner of your Afrikaaner martyr example at all. They are much more akin to the Jewish camp "guards" who aided the Nazis in their activities against their own people. And yeah, I know I just invoked Godwin's Law.

When someone's uses an obvious pejorative that includes racial thinking, I don't side with the people using it. I side with those it's being used against. Of course I side with Kemi Badenoch when you think it's fine she's called a coconut, it's not fine. You won't get a functional multi racial society from that way of thinking.

I'm specifically not telling anyone how to behave, I'm doing the opposite and opposing the idea if someone supports a certain political party this means they're a race traitor.

I don't think you understand my example at all. In the 1948 general election most of the white electorate voted for Smuts and the United Party, because of the electoral system at the time (FPTP Westminster system) the National Party won. Apartheid was the platform for change the National party ran on, this election brought it in. The argument against Smuts and others (Adolf Malan and the WW2 veterans etc) was that they were really Anglos and traitors who opposed change, SA had never historically been a really wealthy place where Afrikaners got a sweet deal before then. And because everyone that could've said "this is total bullshit" was silent or agreed, that argument won through the 50s/60s and the rest is history.

The Tories are cynically using race (and other identity traits like gender) in their culture war game. Calling everyone that's black and a Tory a coconut, seems like an extreme over reaction to me. If they're wrong, just explain how they are.

[tabascoboy]

[petej]

Consider also that Labour did an awful lot to push insulation and renewables (or green crap as Cameron called it). The populists failure on energy is massive.

[salanya]

Listening to PMQ's Truss' plans sound even more crazy.

We have put ourselves in an incredibly uncompetitive environment with Brexit yet she seems to think we are going to succeed with a few tax cuts to attract massive investment in a hugely competitive global market.

The maddest thing of all is that we are in this crisis now, it is an immediate threat, but this plan of hers, which might make more sense in better times, won't deliver anything for years to come. What is she expecting? Giant international firms to locate to a country on the fringes of the EU, employ workers that don't exist and tax receipts and spending to come flooding in to get us out of this, all in the next few weeks?

It's fucking crazy.

+1 on all of that

Loading yourself with more heavy debt (which your party said should be avoided at all cost a few years ago), pretending business will be booming soon (despite all the realities of Brexit which they fought for) and saddling people and businesses with tax burdens in the years to come, and all to help your mates to a few million extra in profits, and the cabinet seats they fancy.

Truss may at least answer questions, but her ideology (adopted out of ambition and not based on any sense, as she has none) could well harm the country more than Boris' lies.

[sockwithaticket]

Listening to PMQ's Truss' plans sound even more crazy.

We have put ourselves in an incredibly uncompetitive environment with Brexit yet she seems to think we are going to succeed with a few tax cuts to attract massive investment in a hugely competitive global market.

The maddest thing of all is that we are in this crisis now, it is an immediate threat, but this plan of hers, which might make more sense in better times, won't deliver anything for years to come. What is she expecting? Giant international firms to locate to a country on the fringes of the EU, employ workers that don't exist and tax receipts and spending to come flooding in to get us out of this, all in the next few weeks?

It's fucking crazy.

+1 on all of that

Loading yourself with more heavy debt (which your party said should be avoided at all cost a few years ago), pretending business will be booming soon (despite all the realities of Brexit which they fought for) and saddling people and businesses with tax burdens in the years to come, and all to help your mates to a few million extra in profits, and the cabinet seats they fancy.

Truss may at least answer questions, but her ideology (adopted out of ambition and not based on any sense, as she has none) could well harm the country more than Boris' lies.

Make no mistake, the ideology of looting the public purse to reward chums and donors(paymasters) while eroding the rights of ordinary people was very much at the heart of the Johnson administration too. His lot just occasionally stayed their hand and tried to mask what they were doing. The mask is well and truly off with Truss and her bunch of disaster capitalists.

[salanya]

Listening to PMQ's Truss' plans sound even more crazy.

We have put ourselves in an incredibly uncompetitive environment with Brexit yet she seems to think we are going to succeed with a few tax cuts to attract massive investment in a hugely competitive global market.

The maddest thing of all is that we are in this crisis now, it is an immediate threat, but this plan of hers, which might make more sense in better times, won't deliver anything for years to come. What is she expecting? Giant international firms to locate to a country on the fringes of the EU, employ workers that don't exist and tax receipts and spending to come flooding in to get us out of this, all in the next few weeks?

It's fucking crazy.

+1 on all of that

Loading yourself with more heavy debt (which your party said should be avoided at all cost a few years ago), pretending business will be booming soon (despite all the realities of Brexit which they fought for) and saddling people and businesses with tax burdens in the years to come, and all to help your mates to a few million extra in profits, and the cabinet seats they fancy.

Truss may at least answer questions, but her ideology (adopted out of ambition and not based on any sense, as she has none) could well harm the country more than Boris' lies.

Make no mistake, the ideology of looting the public purse to reward chums and donors(paymasters) while eroding the rights of ordinary people was very much at the heart of the Johnson administration too. His lot just occasionally stayed their hand and tried to mask what they were doing. The mask is well and truly off with Truss and her bunch of disaster capitalists.

Obviously Boris' lies were about masking all those practices, whereas Truss doesn't lie about it, but the end effect is the same.
But Boris was slightly more likely to bend to public pressure to maintain his 'likeability' on special occassions, like giving in to the windfall tax.
Truss is not looking like she has any bends in her, just U-turns as instructed by her paymasters.

[ia801310]

You are wrong on both counts.

1) I'll repeat what I said before on this kinda subject. One of my (more militant, granted) Ghanaian friends Jennifer always used to say something like "White people invented racism. White people perpetuated racism (still do actually). White people don't now get the f**k to tell me what is and isn't racist too."

I can categorically tell you that probably all my black friends and relatives (pretty sure I have more than you and so a much larger sample size) , militant or not, will agree with the use of the term coconut for the black cabinet ministers in the earlier post. I'll put aside the Asian ones because coconut is not part of Asians' lexicon. So, who do you think is right? You or them?

2) You still don't get it. What apartheid was doing was using power and politics to create separation of wealth and power delineated by a combo of race, culture (primarily these 2) and class. The Tories are up to exactly the same game. It is the Tories who are pushing "stay in your separate lane" and anyone signing up to that manifesto is doing exactly the same. No amount of twisted logic, tautology or one sided intellectual idealism put forth by you is going to flip the debate to your side. Your gaping flaw is in the assertion in this line:
"Guess what Afrikaners were told by other Afrikaners when they dared to challenge anything back in the day.............."
because there, there were Afrikaaners seeking to change from within (though a minuscule number compared with what most safas would like us to believe today much in the same way that in France, everyone's ancestors were in the Resistance) WHEREAS these c**ts aren't attempting to change anything. Absolutely the reverse. They are trying to enforce the status quo whilst benefiting from it themselves. These are not change activists in the manner of your Afrikaaner martyr example at all. They are much more akin to the Jewish camp "guards" who aided the Nazis in their activities against their own people. And yeah, I know I just invoked Godwin's Law.

When someone's uses an obvious pejorative that includes racial thinking, I don't side with the people using it. I side with those it's being used against. Of course I side with Kemi Badenoch when you think it's fine she's called a coconut, it's not fine. You won't get a functional multi racial society from that way of thinking.

I'm specifically not telling anyone how to behave, I'm doing the opposite and opposing the idea if someone supports a certain political party this means they're a race traitor.

I don't think you understand my example at all. In the 1948 general election most of the white electorate voted for Smuts and the United Party, because of the electoral system at the time (FPTP Westminster system) the National Party won. Apartheid was the platform for change the National party ran on, this election brought it in. The argument against Smuts and others (Adolf Malan and the WW2 veterans etc) was that they were really Anglos and traitors who opposed change, SA had never historically been a really wealthy place where Afrikaners got a sweet deal before then. And because everyone that could've said "this is total bullshit" was silent or agreed, that argument won through the 50s/60s and the rest is history.

The Tories are cynically using race (and other identity traits like gender) in their culture war game. Calling everyone that's black and a Tory a coconut, seems like an extreme over reaction to me. If they're wrong, just explain how they are.

Agree with this.

It is interesting that those on the left consider racial abuse and general bigotry to be acceptable so long as the targets are Conservatives. Indeed a kinder, gentler politics, luckily the electorate can see through the left's facade, this bigotry is one of the reasons why the Conservative Party is the most successful political party in the Western World.

[Niegs]

[Hal Jordan]

She's just dumped the top Civil Servant who saw through several major crises. The Tufton Street crowd will be moving in wholesale, and God help us all.

[Torquemada 1420]

When someone's uses an obvious pejorative that includes racial thinking, I don't side with the people using it. I side with those it's being used against. Of course I side with Kemi Badenoch when you think it's fine she's called a coconut, it's not fine. You won't get a functional multi racial society from that way of thinking.

Yes. It's your prerogative under free will/speech. Just don't expect most coloured people to see it for anything other than what it is: another piece of white, middle class, exhibitionist moral superiority. "Them crackers still thinks theys know whass best for us" as one of my friend's sons would say.

I'm specifically not telling anyone how to behave, I'm doing the opposite and opposing the idea if someone supports a certain political party this means they're a race traitor.

Really? How about Magda Goebbels?

I don't think you understand my example at all. In the 1948 general election most of the white electorate voted for Smuts and the United Party, because of the electoral system at the time (FPTP Westminster system) the National Party won. Apartheid was the platform for change the National party ran on, this election brought it in. The argument against Smuts and others (Adolf Malan and the WW2 veterans etc) was that they were really Anglos and traitors who opposed change, SA had never historically been a really wealthy place where Afrikaners got a sweet deal before then. And because everyone that could've said "this is total bullshit" was silent or agreed, that argument won through the 50s/60s and the rest is history.

The Tories are cynically using race (and other identity traits like gender) in their culture war game. Calling everyone that's black and a Tory a coconut, seems like an extreme over reaction to me. If they're wrong, just explain how they are.

I understood it perfectly. What you fail to grasp (or are wilfully ignoring) is the opposite directions of travel in your original example versus this discussion:
1) The 5 white South Africans who actually opposed Apartheid were going against the incumbent evil.
2) The coconuts are siding with the incumbent evil.
Do I need to distil this down to monosyllabic sentences as an aide?

[derriz]

When someone's uses an obvious pejorative that includes racial thinking, I don't side with the people using it. I side with those it's being used against. Of course I side with Kemi Badenoch when you think it's fine she's called a coconut, it's not fine. You won't get a functional multi racial society from that way of thinking.

Yes. It's your prerogative under free will/speech. Just don't expect most coloured people to see it for anything other than what it is: another piece of white, middle class, exhibitionist moral superiority. "Them crackers still thinks theys know whass best for us" as one of my friend's sons would say.

Your friend's son sounds like a proper racist. I hope he's young and will grow out of it.

[_Os_]

I understood it perfectly. What you fail to grasp (or are wilfully ignoring) is the opposite directions of travel in your original example versus this discussion:
1) The 5 white South Africans who actually opposed Apartheid were going against the incumbent evil.
2) The coconuts are siding with the incumbent evil.
Do I need to distil this down to monosyllabic sentences as an aide?

Here's a picture of some of the 5 white South African's that opposed apartheid when it was actually being brought in, at a vigil opposing the stripping of the coloured franchise (coloured in the SA sense, not whatever way you're using it). You think you know the history but you don't, how was it an "incumbent evil" if they were trying to stop a change happening?



What happened to these people? Simple, through the rest of the 1950s and 1960s they were accused of being race traitors for their political views and that argument eventually won.

The politics you're advocating for doesn't end up in a good place.

[fishfoodie]

The Alliance Party aren't impressed with the new Justice appointment

[Tichtheid]

An article from February last year

The Sordid Story of the Most Successful Political Party in the World

https://newrepublic.com/article/161328/ ... is-johnson

[fishfoodie]

The Bumblecunts efforts to get a stooge into the Commons privileges committee, have failed, & now Dizzy gets to select her own MP.

Liz Truss scraps appointment of Christopher Chope to partygate inquiry into Boris Johnson

The new Prime Minister withdraws two motions to appoint the controversial backbencher to the Commons privileges committee

Liz Truss has shelved Boris Johnson’s plans to nominate Tory MP Christopher Chope to the body that will be investigating whether the former prime minister lied to Parliament over the partygate scandal.

In one of her first acts as Prime Minister on Tuesday evening she withdrew two motions to appoint the controversial backbencher to the Commons privileges committee.

The cross-bench group is conducting an inquiry into whether Mr Johnson committed contempt of Parliament by insisting there were no lockdown-busting parties at No 10.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... e-inquiry/

[tabascoboy]

Well it would be in the interests of Truss to try and put the kibosh on a Second Coming of the BB for sure, so let's hope we get someone who's not got anything to fear if he goes down. ALternatively she could just be using this "good time to bury bad news" period to hope it fizzles out trying to sweep this under the carpet.

[Hal Jordan]

Chope is an absolute twunt. Career backbencher in a safe seat, he can be an awful human being on the public purse with utter impunity.

[fishfoodie]

Chope is an absolute twunt. Career backbencher in a safe seat, he can be an awful human being on the public purse with utter impunity.

Yep !

It's a wonder he hasn't been put in charge of the Home Office, or Overseas Development.

[Biffer]

Seen a fair few comments on Twitter saying Truss has had a hell of a first week and expressing a bit of sympathy for her.

Personally I’m very confident she’ll manage to go downhill from here.

[petej]

Seen a fair few comments on Twitter saying Truss has had a hell of a first week and expressing a bit of sympathy for her.

Personally I’m very confident she’ll manage to go downhill from here.

Bollox. Its manna from heaven time for Truss. Never waste a good crisis and all that

This. Then she can take a trip to Kyiv if anything sticky comes up.

[Torquemada 1420]

Here's a picture of some of the 5 white South African's that opposed apartheid when it was actually being brought in, at a vigil opposing the stripping of the coloured franchise (coloured in the SA sense, not whatever way you're using it). You think you know the history but you don't, how was it an "incumbent evil" if they were trying to stop a change happening?

Nah. You just moved the goalposts by shifting the time frame backwards in order that your example now attempts to portray those preventing an evil becoming incumbent. It matters not a jot because the debate centres on those joining an incumbent evil whose principles are openly aligned against the bulk of blacks and their culture.

I can't see any picture. Just says "image". Here's one for you:

Love. The Tories.

[_Os_]

Here's a picture of some of the 5 white South African's that opposed apartheid when it was actually being brought in, at a vigil opposing the stripping of the coloured franchise (coloured in the SA sense, not whatever way you're using it). You think you know the history but you don't, how was it an "incumbent evil" if they were trying to stop a change happening?

Nah. You just moved the goalposts by shifting the time frame backwards in order that your example now attempts to portray those preventing an evil becoming incumbent. It matters not a jot because the debate centres on those joining an incumbent evil whose principles are openly aligned against the bulk of blacks and their culture.

I can't see any picture. Just says "image". Here's one for you:

Love. The Tories.

Read the posts again, I didn't shift any goal posts, you just didn't understand the point I was making and I had to repeat it (why did I refer to 1948/Smuts/Adolf Malan/WW2 veterans in an earlier post if I was referring to another time?). You finally got it when I put a picture in if you saw it or not.

You think the coconut racist slur is fine, in other words that calling someone a racial traitor is fine. But what world would you create if you won under those conditions? If someone that isn't white is a racial traitor ie a coconut for supporting the Tories, does that mean a white person is a racial traitor for supporting Labour or can white people support any party they like? This may seem a bit pointless and academic now, but births and migration mean the UK will be about 40% not white in a few decades, so it isn't really.

I'm very familiar with the UK's hostile environment and the Windrush scandal. I'm literally a national of an African country who moved to the UK when my parents did. When the subject of expertise comes up on here, I say I'm not an expert and that I'm just commenting on things which interest me. I hardly need a picture of a van on this subject though, for whatever sin I committed in a past life I am an expert on it (probably above anyone else commenting on here). Things got a lot worse under this Tory government, but the failures in that system are decades old and all to do with the UK attempting to shed colonies without inheriting the populations of those colonies (something it will ultimately fail in), it's beyond just being the Tories.

[ia801310]

Here's a picture of some of the 5 white South African's that opposed apartheid when it was actually being brought in, at a vigil opposing the stripping of the coloured franchise (coloured in the SA sense, not whatever way you're using it). You think you know the history but you don't, how was it an "incumbent evil" if they were trying to stop a change happening?

Nah. You just moved the goalposts by shifting the time frame backwards in order that your example now attempts to portray those preventing an evil becoming incumbent. It matters not a jot because the debate centres on those joining an incumbent evil whose principles are openly aligned against the bulk of blacks and their culture.

I can't see any picture. Just says "image". Here's one for you:

Love. The Tories.

Read the posts again, I didn't shift any goal posts, you just didn't understand the point I was making and I had to repeat it (why did I refer to 1948/Smuts/Adolf Malan/WW2 veterans in an earlier post if I was referring to another time?). You finally got it when I put a picture in if you saw it or not.

You think the coconut racist slur is fine, in other words that calling someone a racial traitor is fine. But what world would you create if you won under those conditions? If someone that isn't white is a racial traitor ie a coconut for supporting the Tories, does that mean a white person is a racial traitor for supporting Labour or can white people support any party they like? This may seem a bit pointless and academic now, but births and migration mean the UK will be about 40% not white in a few decades, so it isn't really.

I'm very familiar with the UK's hostile environment and the Windrush scandal. I'm literally a national of an African country who moved to the UK when my parents did. When the subject of expertise comes up on here, I say I'm not an expert and that I'm just commenting on things which interest me. I hardly need a picture of a van on this subject though, for whatever sin I committed in a past life I am an expert on it (probably above anyone else commenting on here). Things got a lot worse under this Tory government, but the failures in that system are decades old and all to do with the UK attempting to shed colonies without inheriting the populations of those colonies (something it will ultimately fail in), it's beyond just being the Tories.

Of course they can, White People can vote for whomever them like. Non-White people must vote Labour as their White Saviours instruct, any that do not are traitors to their race and are to be condemned by their White Saviours outright.

A kinder, gentler politics

[Hal Jordan]

Seen a fair few comments on Twitter saying Truss has had a hell of a first week and expressing a bit of sympathy for her.

Personally I’m very confident she’ll manage to go downhill from here.

Bollox. Its manna from heaven time for Truss. Never waste a good crisis and all that

Christ knows what horrible shit they'll sneak out in the next few weeks. Geological report on fracking already back on the shelf.

[petej]

Seen a fair few comments on Twitter saying Truss has had a hell of a first week and expressing a bit of sympathy for her.

Personally I’m very confident she’ll manage to go downhill from here.

Bollox. Its manna from heaven time for Truss. Never waste a good crisis and all that

Christ knows what horrible shit they'll sneak out in the next few weeks. Geological report on fracking already back on the shelf.

I thought the outcome of previous onshore fracking reports were very disappointing for the UK? There actually isn't that much and it will take ages to get it. Also doesn't it require a lot of water and clean up to stop ground water contamination? I can get developing cambo oil field but onshore fracking seems dumb.

[Calculon]

That's what I read, onshore fra hicking isn't really viable

[Insane_Homer]

[sturginho]

Saw a picture from the accession council, she has a face like a smacked arse...

[Dogbert]

“Two soups”

[Torquemada 1420]

You think the coconut racist slur is fine,

FFS, this is like groundhog day. You don't get to dictate whether the term "coconut" is racist or not in the context being discussed here. Period. That's the whole crux. You just shouting "it's racist"

doesn't make it so.