UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

Poor Ed Miliband isn't having the best week...



(also, RIP Bob Holness :( )

he should just quit imo

As that peer said earlier, he doesn't have any strategy or any "ideology" (like the big society or whatever), he's just really boring and really uninspiring (and was a crap environment minister).

They should have a leadership contest, and hopefully vote in Alan Johnson, who is by far the best politician Labour have (apart from maybe Tom Watson, but he's not experienced enough yet).
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/06/twitter-ed-miliband-blackbusters-typo?CMP=twt_gu

smh, there is nothing "trivial" about Abbott's comments. Yeah the 'blackbusters' thing was just some stupid bullshit, but Abbott's comments were maliciously racist, and I can't quite believe people are letting her get away without apologising properly or resigning.

Not even remotely surprised. They can't afford to hound her one this one, it's too sensitive.

Did you see this?...

Telegraph said:
That row flared up again this morning as Miss Abbott was attacked by London's cabbies for suggesting that taxi drivers do not pick up black passengers.

Miss Abbott tweeted: “Dubious of black people claiming they’ve never experienced racism. Ever tried hailing a taxi I always wonder?”

Steve McNamara, a spokesman for the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association said Miss Abbott was indulging in "the stereotypes of the 1960s" and said many of the LTDA's 9,000 drivers are black or Muslim.

"At worst she is racist and at best she is stupid in making comments like that. Either way, she should go," said Mr McNamara.

From here. Damned convenient timing for this article too.

Politics, politics, politics.
 
Damn, that taxi shit too?

She has to go. She has to either resign or be sacked, her position is untenable.

She's a shitty politician, but I don't think she should go because of this. I think you're just making a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't like politicians walking on eggshells when expressing themselves, and that's what this kind of knee-jerkism promotes. If people are offended by her comments then let them vote her out.
 
She's a shitty politician, but I don't think she should go because of this. I think you're just making a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't like politicians walking on eggshells when expressing themselves, and that's what this kind of knee-jerkism promotes. If people are offended by her comments then let them vote her out.

But she's clearly racist, and is the MP of a constituency in which 40% identify themselves as White British.

I can't help but think (and no I'm not being like the Daily Mail or whatever), that if this was a White politician saying something similar, that they'd be sacked right away.

I don't think that wanting a clearly racist MP to be fired is "knee-jerk"
 
But she's clearly racist, and is the MP of a constituency in which 40% identify themselves as White British.

I can't help but think (and no I'm not being like the Daily Mail or whatever), that if this was a White politician saying something similar, that they'd be sacked right away.

I don't think that wanting a clearly racist MP to be fired is "knee-jerk"

I'd like to see an MP make a generalisation about the Muslim community and then keep their job.

This is bogus. I agree with Fragula in principle but the fact is, we never let this shit slide normally and we won't let it slide the next time. For that reason, I don't want to see it slide this time. I need to know she understands why what she said was wrong. At the moment, I don't think she thinks there is anything wrong with what she said.
 
But she's clearly racist, and is the MP of a constituency in which 40% identify themselves as White British.

I can't help but think (and no I'm not being like the Daily Mail or whatever), that if this was a White politician saying something similar, that they'd be sacked right away.

I don't think that wanting a clearly racist MP to be fired is "knee-jerk"
Saying what though? What she said is not actually that bad. She didn't call white people stupid or say they suck or anything like that. She said that they like to divide and rule, a reference to historical fact. The white person equivalent would be something like, Prince Charles going to Japan and saying that Japanese people like to wake up early and attack while you're not looking. Not PC? Sure. Something that is definitely not a good thing to say? Absolutely. But stop pretending that it's some huge and terribly offensive insult. It isn't.
 
She's a shitty politician, but I don't think she should go because of this. I think you're just making a mountain out of a molehill.

I don't like politicians walking on eggshells when expressing themselves, and that's what this kind of knee-jerkism promotes. If people are offended by her comments then let them vote her out.

I think she should be prosecuted.

Not that I have anything in particular against Diane Abbott, or that I think that what she said over Twitter should be criminalised, but the fact remains that it is criminal, and under a law that is being used to harass quite harmless citizens and we could do with a good test case.

Not, as some commentators have mentioned, under the Public Order Acts, but under section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003 for sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive.

That should focus the minds of some politicians on the impact of the bills that they so readily pass into law (and which Diane Abbott voted for, I believe).
 
Saying what though? What she said is not actually that bad. She didn't call white people stupid or say they suck or anything like that. She said that they like to divide and rule, a reference to historical fact. The white person equivalent would be something like, Prince Charles going to Japan and saying that Japanese people like to wake up early and attack while you're not looking. Not PC? Sure. Something that is definitely not a good thing to say? Absolutely. But stop pretending that it's some huge and terribly offensive insult. It isn't.

No, a white equivalent might be something bullshit like:

"Black people like to sell their enemies off as slaves #tacticsoldastheslavetrade"

Diane Abbott is a racist, and while I don't think she should be prosecuted, she should be fired.
 
Saying what though? What she said is not actually that bad. She didn't call white people stupid or say they suck or anything like that. She said that they like to divide and rule, a reference to historical fact. The white person equivalent would be something like, Prince Charles going to Japan and saying that Japanese people like to wake up early and attack while you're not looking. Not PC? Sure. Something that is definitely not a good thing to say? Absolutely. But stop pretending that it's some huge and terribly offensive insult. It isn't.

The comment was racially divisive and seems indicative of a mind entrenched in a (slightly racist) 'Us VS. Them' mentality. Added to the rest of her innocent 'faux-pas' and we're looking at enough muck to bury any white politician / sportsman / TV presenter.

If you see nothing wrong with the comment is it fair for me to assume that you wish to 'divide & rule' ethnic minorities? She was speaking in present tense and referring to all white people, remember.


Edit: Phisheep, that's an orgasmic idea but it will never, ever, ever happen. Those laws are for us, not for them.

*Looks at the smokers in the House Of Commons (possibly Lords)*
 
The comment was racially divisive and seems indicative of a mind entrenched in a (slightly racist) 'Us VS. Them' mentality. Added to the rest of her innocent 'faux-pas' and we're looking at enough muck to bury any white politician / sportsman / TV presenter.

If you see nothing wrong with the comment is it fair for me to assume that you wish to 'divide & rule' ethnic minorities? She was speaking in present tense and referring to all white people, remember.

Here, let me try a test case. White people don't get racism like other people do. It's like they're half guessing stuff, cause they've never really experienced racism.

no, that's not how it works.

Diane Abbott is stupid. Only you know if somebody is being racist to you. If you, as a white person, think she is being racist to you, then you have my support.

But, let's not get into the 'if she was white, and said something regards black people,etc'... most examples like that are out of wack. no race, colour, creed should be discriminated against.
 
Tell me more about your 'special box'...

Well I started developing the idea when I noticed that the curriculum unintentionally focuses on a handful of the intelligences outlined in Howard Gardner's 'Theory of Multiple Intelligences' and the idea of the 'Special Box' is to get children to demonstrate aspects of their Interpersonal and Intrapersonal intelligence. Subjects like PSHE also try to cover this.

For example a child who isn't comfortable contributing to Mathematics lessons because of anxiety might be more comfortable discussing something about themselves - such as a special memory they have or what hobbies they partake in for extracurricular activities.

Basically, the 'Special Box' might contain photographs of holidays with their family, items that mean something to them, a poem that they like to read etc. That way the child's classmates can get to know them a bit better and get an opportunity to understand them while the child through answering questions about their choices may get to know themselves better. The items a child chooses often tell themselves a lot about 'who they are'.

We've had items specifically reflecting their culture, items that reflect their passions and we've even had a really touching example of a child whose father was ill with cancer.

Initially I was apprehensive about what his box's contents may be so I discussed it with him before hand and he said that he really wanted to discuss it with the class. Death and cancer is not an easy thing to discuss at the best of times, let alone in a Primary environment. With his Mum's and the head's approval he got up in front of the class and talked about his father, that he had cancer and that if things do not get better, he'll have the photos of his happy memories with his Dad to remember him by for the rest of his life. The classes response to this was amazing and the child's bravery astounded me. Up until that point he was quite quiet, timid and reserved.

After that point he became a tad more extroverted and was included in activities a lot more by his peers because he had done a very brave thing and won all of their respect.

He was certainly a lot braver than me. I was quietly sobbing at the side of the room.

Things like that have to be done on a case by case basis but the experience to all of the children was invaluable. If adults cannot discuss death and cancer. . a child who does not understand it is going to have a lot more questions and worries.
 
Here, let me try a test case. White people don't get racism like other people do. It's like they're half guessing stuff, cause they've never really experienced racism.

no, that's not how it works.

Diane Abbott is stupid. Only you know if somebody is being racist to you. If you, as a white person, think she is being racist to you, then you have my support.

But, let's not get into the 'if she was white, and said something regards black people,etc'... most examples like that are out of wack. no race, colour, creed should be discriminated against.

I, as a white person who wants full racial equality, feel she was being racist against me.

And I have experienced racism, in the UK and in Taiwan.


Well I started developing the idea when I noticed that the curriculum unintentionally focuses on a handful of the intelligences outlined in Howard Gardner's 'Theory of Multiple Intelligences' and the idea of the 'Special Box' is to get children to demonstrate aspects of their Interpersonal and Intrapersonal intelligence.

For example a child who isn't comfortable contributing to Mathematics lessons because of anxiety might be more comfortable discussing something about themselves - such as a special memory they have or what hobbies they partake in for extracurricular activities.

Basically, the 'Special Box' might contain photographs of holidays with their family, items that mean something to them, a poem that they like to read etc. That way the child's classmates can get to know them a bit better and get an opportunity to understand them while the child through answering questions about their choices may get to know themselves better. The items a child chooses often tell themselves a lot about 'who they are'.

We've had items specifically reflecting their culture, items that reflect their passions and we've even had a really touching example of a child whose father was ill with cancer.

Initially I was apprehensive about what his box's contents may be so I discussed it with him before hand and he said that he really wanted to discuss it with the class. Death and cancer is not an easy thing to discuss at the best of times, let alone in a Primary environment. With the head's approval he got up in front of the class and talked about his father, that he had cancer and that if things do not get better, he'll have the photos of his happy memories with his Dad to remember him by for the rest of his life. The classes response to this was amazing and the child's bravery astounded me. Up until that point he was quite quiet, timid and reserved.

After that point he became a tad more extroverted and was included in activities a lot more by his peers because he had done a very brave thing and won all of their respect.

He was certainly a lot braver than me. I was quietly sobbing at the side of the room.

Oh, sorry!

I didn't actually mean to get you to write that out, I was accusing you of sexually abusing children!

jokingly
 
Saying what though? What she said is not actually that bad. She didn't call white people stupid or say they suck or anything like that. She said that they like to divide and rule, a reference to historical fact. The white person equivalent would be something like, Prince Charles going to Japan and saying that Japanese people like to wake up early and attack while you're not looking. Not PC? Sure. Something that is definitely not a good thing to say? Absolutely. But stop pretending that it's some huge and terribly offensive insult. It isn't.

Prince Phillip hasn't done that yet?
 
I didn't actually mean to get you to write that out, I was accusing you of sexually abusing children!

jokingly

Not every day you hear that! Haha.

On a serious note, feedback on the idea would be nice from a non-teacher adult perspective, particularly about the emotional stuff. I'm a great believer in emotional development at primary and professional development at secondary level.

If I was your child's teacher, would you be comfortable with me dealing with the big issues in such a way? Its not something I'd discuss down the pub because I'd get called a bellend. People seem quite reasonable in this thread.

KuGsj.gif


The new curriculum will hopefully flesh out PSHE a lot more. Its currently about 2 pages, which is awful.
 
If I was your child's teacher, would you be comfortable with me dealing with the big issues in such a way? Its not something I'd discuss down the pub because I'd get called a bellend. People seem quite reasonable in this thread.

yeah sounds like a good idea, primary school is as much about personal development as it is about academic development
 
Cameron promises powers to limit executives' pay

David Cameron has promised shareholders a binding vote on executive pay, in an effort to deal with excessive salaries.

The prime minister told the BBC there had been a "market failure", with some bosses getting huge rises despite firms not improving their performances.

He also pledged to tackle large payouts for executives dismissed because of poor performance.

But Labour accused ministers of failing to increase fairness and transparency from boardrooms and the City.

Too little, too late?
 
I dunno really, I don't want the government to punish those who are getting bonuses on merit (e.g. someone adds £30,000,000 of value to a company rightly deserves £1m imo), but some of the bonus culture does go a bit too far and fly in the face of the lower-middle class.

ps. Cameron sounds like a dick when he says "Quango"
 

sounds fair

also:

"He is also likely to tell Salmond he will not be allowed to ask a third question on the ballot paper, over a form of devolution stopping short of independence."

Good, not bullshit "devo-max", they're either in or out.
 
sounds fair

"He is also likely to tell Salmond he will not be allowed to ask a third question on the ballot paper, over a form of devolution stopping short of independence."

Good, not bullshit "devo-max", they're either in or out.

Huh, since when is the union rule by diktat? It's meant to be a union of equals. All the opinion polls show most people in Scotland would back Devo Max, so why should this not be allowed as an option?

Oh, and Cameron is playing with fire. I don't give a shit per se when the referendum is held, but if he's giving an 18 month limit because of economic uncertainty, he better prove that with facts. I'd say his economic policies are much more dangerous to the economy.
 
I'm curious - if Scotland does secede, how will the border to England be managed? Will they have a mini "Schengen"-type agreement similar to now (no border checks, etc) or will it be more significant?
 
Huh, since when is the union rule by diktat? It's meant to be a union of equals. All the opinion polls show most people in Scotland would back Devo Max, so why should this not be allowed as an option?

because there has to be a point at which Scotland stops receiving central UK funding if it wants to make laws that increase spending on Scottish, and Scottish only, people.

If Scotland wants to spend a lot of money (as it currently does) within its own taxation system and its own treasury then I'd be more than happy to let it go on its way and go that way.

Plus Devo-max is an absolute cop-out for the SNP, they promised to make Scotland independent, and were voted in on that, not to be "autonomous but to still receive Westminster money". That wouldn't be fair on England, Wales and Norn Iron.

If Scotland wants to go it should leave, if Scotland wants to stay it should stay. There shouldn't be any shades of gray in this.

I'm curious - if Scotland does secede, how will the border to England be managed? Will they have a mini "Schengen"-type agreement similar to now (no border checks, etc) or will it be more significant?

Yeah, there'd have to be.
 
David Cameron is to take a high stakes gamble with the union this week by telling the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, that he can have a binding referendum on Scottish independence – but only in the next 18 months, after which any referendum can be no more than advisory.
Twat-face shows how out of touch he is once again. The only people who should have any say on the Scottish referendum should be Scots. Not some toff from London.


I'm curious - if Scotland does secede, how will the border to England be managed? Will they have a mini "Schengen"-type agreement similar to now (no border checks, etc) or will it be more significant?

Probably the same way the border with Ireland is managed...
 
because there has to be a point at which Scotland stops receiving central UK funding if it wants to make laws that increase spending on Scottish, and Scottish only, people.

If Scotland wants to spend a lot of money (as it currently does) within its own taxation system and its own treasury then I'd be more than happy to let it go on its way and go that way.

Plus Devo-max is an absolute cop-out for the SNP, they promised to make Scotland independent, and were voted in on that, not to be "autonomous but to still receive Westminster money". That wouldn't be fair on England, Wales and Norn Iron.

If Scotland wants to go it should leave, if Scotland wants to stay it should stay. There shouldn't be any shades of gray in this.



Yeah, there'd have to be.

Devo-max would basically give scotland it's own treasury and taxation system, responsible for raising and spending all public money in Scotland, removing the shitty barnett formula once and for all. Money for defence etc could then just be given to the UK government, as opposed to them giving Scotland money.

And devomax is as close to independence you can possibly get while still being in the union, and it wouldn't be hard in order to overcome that final psychological barrier and going the whole way, so it's hardly a cop out for the SNP to go that far into a situation that would almost certainly end up in full independence in 10 -15 years.
 
well as of right now support for devo max is like 70%, whereas full independence is 35%. scotland can't leave the UK without more than 50% voting yes.

why should Scotland get all the perks of UK membership but all of the self-determination of a full country?

we either need to make an English parliament, devolve fully to all national parliaments, abolish the house of lords and keep the commons as a less powerful, federal body (my preference, but hugely utopian), basically giving all countries devo-max

or just let Scotland choose to stay in or go.

Devo max is a sham.
 
why should Scotland get all the perks of UK membership but all of the self-determination of a full country?

we either need to make an English parliament, devolve fully to all national parliaments, abolish the house of lords and keep the commons as a less powerful, federal body (my preference, but hugely utopian), basically giving all countries devo-max

or just let Scotland choose to stay in or go.

Devo max is a sham.

I'd much rather have a fully federal UK than devo max as well (In fact, it's my favourite constitutional option), but like you say, it simply isn't going to happen.

There are issues with devo max like you say but it's not as if England has some right to rule over Scotland, it's a United Kingdom and whatever the people want, the people should get. Have a referendum in the rest of the UK to get approval for devo max, fair enough it's massive constitutional change. If they vote no then Scotland could just choose to up sticks and leave completely, giving them no benefits of having us in the union.
 
There are issues with devo max like you say but it's not as if England has some right to rule over Scotland

England doesn't rule over Scotland.

The United Kingdom, the government of which is based in London, the biggest and most important city in the UK, rules over Scotland, just as it does in England, Wales and NI (let's not forget that 2 of the last 3 PMs were Scottish).

England is the only country in the UK which doesn't have sovereign control over the majority of its matters.
 
So why should Cameron have the right to effectively ban Scotland from having the constitutional arrangement that opinion polls show most people would want?

He has literally no mandate in Scotland.

If people in Yorkshire decided they wanted a legally binding referendum to secede should we give it to them? (yes, because the IQ score of the country would skyrocket)

He does have a mandate in Scotland, he's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part.

What makes Cameron "England" in this scenario? Yes he's English, but the last 2 PMs, Brown and Blair, were both Scottish and refused calls for a referendum.
 
Twat-face shows how out of touch he is once again. The only people who should have any say on the Scottish referendum should be Scots. Not some toff from London.




Probably the same way the border with Ireland is managed...

I think this could play right into the hands of the SNP. If there's one thing the Scots hate, it's tories. A tory telling them what they can do and when will really fuck them off.
 
If people in Yorkshire decided they wanted a legally binding referendum to secede should we give it to them? (yes, because the IQ score of the country would skyrocket)

sure.

He does have a mandate in Scotland, he's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part.

Hmm, 1 MP and 11 lib dem who probably wouldn't have been elected had they made clear they planned to join the tories in government. He has the right to be prime minister of course, but given that Scotland opted democratically to have a referendum, his only job in this scenario should be to facilitate that referendum, not place restrictions on it.

What makes Cameron "England" in this scenario? Yes he's English, but the last 2 PMs, Brown and Blair, were both Scottish and refused calls for a referendum.

Both Blair and Brown had a massive Scottish mandate, and the SNP hadn't attained a position where they could claim they had the right to hold a referendum.
 
Hmm, 1 MP and 11 lib dem who probably wouldn't have been elected had they made clear they planned to join the tories in government. He has the right to be prime minister of course, but given that Scotland opted democratically to have a referendum, his only job in this scenario should be to facilitate that referendum, not place restrictions on it.

No, his job is to do what's best for the citizens of England, Wales, Scotland and NI.

If Scotland said that it wanted £500bn to spend on a giant statue of Dennis the Menace, and this had the backing of 51% of people in Scotland, should he do it?
 
No, his job is to do what's best for the citizens of England, Wales, Scotland and NI.

If Scotland said that it wanted £500bn to spend on a giant statue of Dennis the Menace, and this had the backing of 51% of people in Scotland, should he do it?

People have the right to self determination, it's not his place to set rules about how and under what conditions Scotland can have a referendum, or what the options are.. And what's all this crap about advisory/binding referendum anyways? There is no such thing as a truly binding referendum in the UK.
 
He does have a mandate in Scotland, he's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part.

No, he doesn't. The country of Scotland did not in any substantial way vote for David Cameron or the Tory Party. He has no mandate there. That's the issue. The Scottish polity is fundamentally different to the English, to the extent that binding both into a tight multinational unitary state is lunacy.

I don't get why it's hard to accept that the United Kingdom is an anachronism, something worthy of being discarded on the dustbin of history.
 
No, his job is to do what's best for the citizens of England, Wales, Scotland and NI.

If Scotland said that it wanted £500bn to spend on a giant statue of Dennis the Menace, and this had the backing of 51% of people in Scotland, should he do it?

Fuck yes. That'd be an awesome statue. I bet it'd like, rotate round, fire tomatoes at people or a working automatic peashooter.
 
No, he doesn't. The country of Scotland did not in any substantial way vote for David Cameron or the Tory Party. He has no mandate there. That's the issue. The Scottish polity is fundamentally different to the English, to the extent that binding both into a tight multinational unitary state is lunacy.

I don't get why it's hard to accept that the United Kingdom is an anachronism, something worthy of being discarded on the dustbin of history.

I don't buy it though, Liverpool is distinctly different from the rest of the country, and didn't vote for Cameron in any substantial way. Does that mean that they should secede?
 
I don't buy it though, Liverpool is distinctly different from the rest of the country, and didn't vote for Cameron in any substantial way. Does that mean that they should secede?

If they wanted to leave England, sure. Scotland Scotland has been an independent country for most of its existence, and would be mostly comparable to most other countries in the world if it was independent again. Liverpool? Not so much. But if they wanted to be a city state that much they shouldn't be stopped.
 
Top Bottom