Comments by "" (@titteryenot4524) on "Channel 4 News"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@EvsEntps You may poke fun at the Irish Republicans for being so anti-English but to be fair, as far as I can see, the Irish have rather a lot to be angry about with the English historically. First they endured the Scottish Plantations over 100 years which involved the confiscation of Irish-owned land by the English Crown and the colonisation of land by British (mainly Scottish) Protestant settlers into a Catholic territory. Unsurprisingly, the Irish fought back. Two Desmond Rebellions (1569-73;1579-83) to fight against the extension of English governance over the province. Battle of Clontibret (1595) fought against the British. Ditto Battle of the Yellow Ford (1598). The Nine Years’ War (1593-1603) fought English rule in Ireland. The 1641 Rebellion occurred when Irish Catholics were being threatened by the expansion of the anti-Catholic English Parliament and Scottish Planters and they rebelled against English and Protestant domination. The 1798 Irish Rebellion was a major uprising against British rule in Ireland. The Irish wanted an end to anti-Catholic discrimination, greater Irish self-governance and to roll back the Plantations. The 1803 Rebellion of Irish Republicans was against, you’ve guessed it, British rule in Ireland. I think you can spot a theme here. The famous 1916 Easter Rising had the aim of establishing an independent Irish Republic, with the hope of finally ending British colonial rule. And so on, right up to the 1960s when the Civil Rights movement challenged the inequalities and discrimination against ethnic Irish Catholics perpetrated by the Ulster Protestant community. So, with this snapshot of Irish history, I return to my OP that began this whole thread: if the British had kept their nose out of other people’s business, then none of this would have obtained.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@rehan2118 That’s not my point; my point is that humans are tribal, birds of a feather etc etc. Sunak has quite literally nothing in common with your average voter in Newcastle, or Barnsley, or Gosport, for that matter. For all the UK being a Parliamentary Democracy (lol), and not a Presidential system, we all know that most (all?) Brits do place quite a high emphasis on the leader of the party they vote for (notwithstanding all the policy issues). It’s the basic pub test: The Conservatives won seats in hitherto unthinkable places (for the Tories) at the last election. Why? Well, in large part (but certainly not wholly), they warmed to Johnson, and yes, for all his faults (perhaps because of them), many could imagine shooting the breeze with him over a swift half. Sunak, however, has none of this going for him. I deeply doubt that many of those who voted Tory last time will vote Tory next time if Sunak is PM. Or Truss, come to that, as she is hardly much more ‘relatable’ than Sunak. Hence why Labour may have a genuine chance, notwithstanding their bland, undefined presence as we speak.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3