Snap General Election called - The new UK Politics thread

[Puja]

Hilariously complacent, Neo-Blairiste piece from the New Statesman (included for ):
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2 ... ir-starmer

Wow. That's... spectacularly divorced from reality.

New party not even launched yet, and that author knows everything about their policies and aims. Also loving the conclusion that it'll pander to the hordes of British-flag-hating BAME voters - quite apart from the quasi-Farage lumping together of 'dangerous minorities with loyalties to other nations', I'm impressed that he can think of no other reasons why people might be fucked off with Starmer.

Puja

It's so over the top it's like a satire of what the Third Way, rightmost fringe of Labour might say. Like getting a glimpse into Wes Streeting's mind. Plus some genuine lunacy.

'Aversion to introspection'? Pot, kettle??
'Trotskyite millionaires, white-haired, nursing a sense of disappointment over how their side lost the Cold War' WTF??
'tired elephant stumbling around, being dragged down by hyenas'? Mate, Labour doesn't need any hyenas to drag it down, it's doing it all by itself.
Seriously, accusing the Greens and Corbyn-Sultana of not caring if Farage wins a landslide, because that would help their agenda??
Claiming that the new party 'will benefit hugely from First Past The Post' when, as a small party the opposite is obviously true.
'The acolytes of the progressive left . . . are itching for an election that can be presented as a referendum on multiculturalism' The far right wants this because it has no good arguments. The left would be mad to want this.
Apparently Corbyn-Sultana and the Greens will be infuriated that they've bounced Labour 'into the direction it should have taken long ago: focused on the Red Wall and the working class'. Really? So because Labour is currently letting down the working class and might be force to do the right thing at last (ie what C-S would do), that will infuriate C-S? I think vindicate is the word he was looking for.
Then he says 'Labour must also finally raise taxes'. What, like the C-S party (and the Greens) will obviously do in order to increase spending? So Labour is wrong and C-S is right?
And nothing positive about C-S's opposition to genocide, or Labour's support of it. Just talk of pro-Palestine extremism and conspiracy theories of October 7th.

It's as mad as a Telegraph article, just in a different way.

You just know that by "focussed on the Red Wall and the working class", he actually means culture wars, don't you? Those poor people up north don't care about improving services, reducing the cost of living, or making a more equal society - what they're most interested in is bigotry, just like Mr Farage offers them. That's how we get them on our side!

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Wow. That's... spectacularly divorced from reality.

New party not even launched yet, and that author knows everything about their policies and aims. Also loving the conclusion that it'll pander to the hordes of British-flag-hating BAME voters - quite apart from the quasi-Farage lumping together of 'dangerous minorities with loyalties to other nations', I'm impressed that he can think of no other reasons why people might be fucked off with Starmer.

Puja

It's so over the top it's like a satire of what the Third Way, rightmost fringe of Labour might say. Like getting a glimpse into Wes Streeting's mind. Plus some genuine lunacy.

'Aversion to introspection'? Pot, kettle??
'Trotskyite millionaires, white-haired, nursing a sense of disappointment over how their side lost the Cold War' WTF??
'tired elephant stumbling around, being dragged down by hyenas'? Mate, Labour doesn't need any hyenas to drag it down, it's doing it all by itself.
Seriously, accusing the Greens and Corbyn-Sultana of not caring if Farage wins a landslide, because that would help their agenda??
Claiming that the new party 'will benefit hugely from First Past The Post' when, as a small party the opposite is obviously true.
'The acolytes of the progressive left . . . are itching for an election that can be presented as a referendum on multiculturalism' The far right wants this because it has no good arguments. The left would be mad to want this.
Apparently Corbyn-Sultana and the Greens will be infuriated that they've bounced Labour 'into the direction it should have taken long ago: focused on the Red Wall and the working class'. Really? So because Labour is currently letting down the working class and might be force to do the right thing at last (ie what C-S would do), that will infuriate C-S? I think vindicate is the word he was looking for.
Then he says 'Labour must also finally raise taxes'. What, like the C-S party (and the Greens) will obviously do in order to increase spending? So Labour is wrong and C-S is right?
And nothing positive about C-S's opposition to genocide, or Labour's support of it. Just talk of pro-Palestine extremism and conspiracy theories of October 7th.

It's as mad as a Telegraph article, just in a different way.

You just know that by "focussed on the Red Wall and the working class", he actually means culture wars, don't you? Those poor people up north don't care about improving services, reducing the cost of living, or making a more equal society - what they're most interested in is bigotry, just like Mr Farage offers them. That's how we get them on our side!

Puja

If his contempt for the working class matches his contempt for the left it's pretty huge.

To be fair he does say Labour needs to tax more and redistribute wealth from the South to the North but he doesn't recognise that Corbyn-Sultana are much more likely to do this than Starmer (who, as a matter of fact has spent one of his five years not doing it).

[Puja]

Good news that Labour, amidst removing the whip from MPs for voting against the government (and from Diane Abbott for not knowing how to shut the hells up*), are actually doing one of the their progressive manifesto commitments and reducing the voting age. Quite apart from the boost that it will give to progressive politics, it makes sense - if you are considered an adult enough to be able to leave school, leave home, work full-time, and get a job at that point, then you should get a say in the government, especially since that say will last for the next 5 years and likely impact way more on them than on a 92 year old.

I also think a lot of the concerns of "they won't be able to make good decisions on voting" are specious, given the people that we already let vote. We already have no problems allowing woefully uninformed or misinformed people to vote, until it comes to expanding the franchise, at which point people concern-troll about poor little 17 year olds getting confused.

Also good news on the liberalisation of the electoral ID laws to allow for bank cards to count as ID for voting. I'd still rather not have the solution in search of a problem, but if we must have it, then that is significantly better than limiting it to photo only.

Puja


*I do actually understand the point that Abbott is trying to make - there is a material difference to the experience of racism for visibly minority groups and non-visibly minority groups. However, she is a) explaining it woefully, and b) doesn't appear to have considered if this is a point that anyone needs her to make. Sure, you're correct Diane; there is a difference. But we shouldn't be **comparing** and trying to rank racisms, because it helps nobody to get embroiled in a discussion of who's got it worse and it's all subjective anyway! All you're going to do with that is upset people and look like a tosser.

Frankly, it's an absolute gift to Starmer. He can legitimately kick her out of the party after this, knowing that there is no chance that Corbyn will leave his mate out in the cold, and then he can brandish the "See, they're all anti-Semitic" banner like he's the Israeli publicity officer.

She seems like she's a wonderful local MP (and her majorities back that up), she's clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable (despite her failures at communicating), and her heart seems to be in the right place, but by all the gods does she not have the composure, communication skills, and gift of public speaking to have ever been involved on the front benches. Just far too easy for a hostile press to bait into saying something stupid.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Good news that Labour, amidst removing the whip from MPs for voting against the government (and from Diane Abbott for not knowing how to shut the hells up*), are actually doing one of the their progressive manifesto commitments and reducing the voting age. Quite apart from the boost that it will give to progressive politics, it makes sense - if you are considered an adult enough to be able to leave school, leave home, work full-time, and get a job at that point, then you should get a say in the government, especially since that say will last for the next 5 years and likely impact way more on them than on a 92 year old.

I also think a lot of the concerns of "they won't be able to make good decisions on voting" are specious, given the people that we already let vote. We already have no problems allowing woefully uninformed or misinformed people to vote, until it comes to expanding the franchise, at which point people concern-troll about poor little 17 year olds getting confused.

Also good news on the liberalisation of the electoral ID laws to allow for bank cards to count as ID for voting. I'd still rather not have the solution in search of a problem, but if we must have it, then that is significantly better than limiting it to photo only.

Puja


*I do actually understand the point that Abbott is trying to make - there is a material difference to the experience of racism for visibly minority groups and non-visibly minority groups. However, she is a) explaining it woefully, and b) doesn't appear to have considered if this is a point that anyone needs her to make. Sure, you're correct Diane; there is a difference. But we shouldn't be **comparing** and trying to rank racisms, because it helps nobody to get embroiled in a discussion of who's got it worse and it's all subjective anyway! All you're going to do with that is upset people and look like a tosser.

Frankly, it's an absolute gift to Starmer. He can legitimately kick her out of the party after this, knowing that there is no chance that Corbyn will leave his mate out in the cold, and then he can brandish the "See, they're all anti-Semitic" banner like he's the Israeli publicity officer.

She seems like she's a wonderful local MP (and her majorities back that up), she's clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable (despite her failures at communicating), and her heart seems to be in the right place, but by all the gods does she not have the composure, communication skills, and gift of public speaking to have ever been involved on the front benches. Just far too easy for a hostile press to bait into saying something stupid.

Yes, I agree with giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. Sure, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 18 wasn't a terrible place to put it but 16 seems justified to me. If you can work, pay taxes, then you should be able to vote.

Hopefully this will come with some compulsory lessons in democracy/politics in school to give them the knowledge that, frankly, we should all be given in order to understand what we're doing with that X. This will probably lead to 16-17 year olds being more informed than a lot of current voters, but over time more and more of the voters will have at least this basic knowledge. I really hope this happens, and fully expect it to be discontinued if Reform or the Tories return to power.

Abbot is an idiot to make this point, and then to make it a hill to die on . . . unless she wants an excuse to join Corbyn-Sultana!

As I probably said before, this is a dumb point to make and is guaranteed to cause offense, indignation, the end of your career, you name it. Fundamentally, all prejudices are as bad as each other. There is no type of person that has more right to protection from bigotry than any other. And and type of prejudice can range from the very subtle to the lethal. Many groups have died horribly from others' prejudices and no one should be trying to claim theirs is fundamentally worse than someone else's because that can never be proved and only divides us. Even if there is a lucky group that hasn't experienced genocide, that could change tomorrow, so the point is that all prejudice is bad and the world is a better place without it.

That means that we should combat it wherever it arises but due to limited resources that might mean tackling the worst examples first. This may be where Abbot has a hint of a point (however counterproductive and dumb her comments are), ie that no doubt, in 2025 UK, the average member of some groups experience worse effects from bigotry than those of some other groups. And if the difference is significant enough, perhaps that prejudice needs more attention. But (if that's what she's getting at) she has an awful way of describing it. And even if the government focuses on a particular prejudice, they should make it clear that all prejudice is equally wrong in principle and this focus is because some particularly bad thing needs to be combated urgently.

[Puja]

Good news that Labour, amidst removing the whip from MPs for voting against the government (and from Diane Abbott for not knowing how to shut the hells up*), are actually doing one of the their progressive manifesto commitments and reducing the voting age. Quite apart from the boost that it will give to progressive politics, it makes sense - if you are considered an adult enough to be able to leave school, leave home, work full-time, and get a job at that point, then you should get a say in the government, especially since that say will last for the next 5 years and likely impact way more on them than on a 92 year old.

I also think a lot of the concerns of "they won't be able to make good decisions on voting" are specious, given the people that we already let vote. We already have no problems allowing woefully uninformed or misinformed people to vote, until it comes to expanding the franchise, at which point people concern-troll about poor little 17 year olds getting confused.

Yes, I agree with giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. Sure, a line has to be drawn somewhere and 18 wasn't a terrible place to put it but 16 seems justified to me. If you can work, pay taxes, then you should be able to vote.

Hopefully this will come with some compulsory lessons in democracy/politics in school to give them the knowledge that, frankly, we should all be given in order to understand what we're doing with that X. This will probably lead to 16-17 year olds being more informed than a lot of current voters, but over time more and more of the voters will have at least this basic knowledge. I really hope this happens, and fully expect it to be discontinued if Reform or the Tories return to power.

The Reform commenting massive are already online parroting that they're **fine** with the idea of giving the vote to 16-17 year olds, but they just hope that they will be allowed to make their own decisions and there won't be teachers "indoctrinating" the poor things into following the Woke agenda. Clearly the message has gone out to get ahead of any attempt to actually educate voters. Given the strength of Reform's social media propaganda game, they're clearly confident of picking off a chunk of the new voters as long as they're not given any accurate information.

Someone online just noted that it's rich that the Tories are up in arms about teenagers not being responsible or knowledgeable enough to vote, considering their leadership elections give the vote to 15 year olds, which meant they were happy allowing teenagers to vote for our Prime Minister before. Mind, that was the leadershio election that led to Liz Truss, so maybe not the best example...

Puja

[Danno]

[you-tube][/you-tube]

[Puja]

[you-tube][/you-tube]

Perfection.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Labour are looking to save money, please the corporates and weaken our regulations on harmful substances by relying on approvals made in other countries. If that was just the EU, fine, that's what we're doing currently, but the proposal is to use an as yet unwritten list of countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... egulations

Submit to the consultation if you want to press for the EU only being used as a trusted foreign jurisdiction.

https://consultations.hse.gov.uk/hse/ch ... proposals/

[Son of Mathonwy]

'Your Party' is born. This is going to make the polling interesting. And grim for Labour and the Greens.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... wing-party

[Danno]

Can we call the GE in like 6 months and just get the chaos of a Reform government over and done with

[Son of Mathonwy]

Can we call the GE in like 6 months and just get the chaos of a Reform government over and done with

Yeah, it does seem pretty inevitable now.

However, let's hold on: we could get some luck. There's 4 years for Starmer or Farage to fuck up politically or suffer some physically debilitating condition which might give us a way out of that. Or a charismatic star might arise in the Corbyn-Sultana party who will dominate UK politics (I can dream ).

[Son of Mathonwy]

Notice how totally silent the press are about Corbyn's supposed 'antisemitism' . . . while he's usefully ruining Labour's shit.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I missed this last month. Starmer's buying 12 F-35s (as part of a long-term plan to buy a total 138 ), despite this making us reliant on the whims of Trump and any future POTUS who could therefore shut down our air force. Brilliant strategic work from the Grima Wormtongue of the world stage.

It's obvious to most people that relying on Trump is like getting your gas from Vladimir Putin.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... g-warheads

Oh yeah and they bring us a step closer using nuclear weapons.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is good. There are too many big companies (eg supermarkets) who abuse their power over small suppliers by delaying payments - effectively using their suppliers as interest free credit cards.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -suppliers

[Puja]

This is good. There are too many big companies (eg supermarkets) who abuse their power over small suppliers by delaying payments - effectively using their suppliers as interest free credit cards.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -suppliers

Huh. I... can't see anything wrong with that.

Good job Starmer? That feels wrong to say.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is good. There are too many big companies (eg supermarkets) who abuse their power over small suppliers by delaying payments - effectively using their suppliers as interest free credit cards.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -suppliers

Huh. I... can't see anything wrong with that.

Good job Starmer? That feels wrong to say.

Puja

There must a catch somewhere.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The UK public massively overestimate* the number of illegal vs the number of legal immigrants, and the more wrong you are, the more likely you are to want a hard-line policy on migrants.

Only 19% of the public were correct in thinking that there are much more legal than illegal immigrants in the UK, 69% overestimated the proportion of illegals, 32% thought there were much more illegals than legals (the opposite of the truth).

And (not surprisingly, really) the 32% who were most wrong were most in favour (at 55%) of getting large numbers of migrants to leave.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... itics-live

A sane, non-far-right government would see this leads to a simple solution - inform the public! Publicize the facts! This would not pop Farage's bubble instantly (it couldn't be that easy) but it would release the pressure while facts slowly settled into brains. Sure, the fake newsers and racists are too far gone but this would ultimately ruin Farage's (and Jenrick's) shit.

Will Starmer do it?

Not a chance.



* how can this be with our honest media and non-hysterical politicians???

[Puja]

The UK public massively overestimate* the number of illegal vs the number of legal immigrants, and the more wrong you are, the more likely you are to want a hard-line policy on migrants.

Only 19% of the public were correct in thinking that there are much more legal than illegal immigrants in the UK, 69% overestimated the proportion of illegals, 32% thought there were much more illegals than legals (the opposite of the truth).

And (not surprisingly, really) the 32% who were most wrong were most in favour (at 55%) of getting large numbers of migrants to leave.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... itics-live

A sane, non-far-right government would see this leads to a simple solution - inform the public! Publicize the facts! This would not pop Farage's bubble instantly (it couldn't be that easy) but it would release the pressure while facts slowly settled into brains. Sure, the fake newsers and racists are too far gone but this would ultimately ruin Farage's (and Jenick's) shit.

Will Starmer will do it?

Not a chance.



* how can this be with our honest media and non-hysterical politicians???

Instead, he seems to be focussing on caving into Reform's demands that the police reveal the ethnicity and immigration status of criminals "when in the public interest" (ie. when Reform know it's a BAME sex-offender and are kicking up a outrage about it). How does he not get that playing their game will see him lose?

Puja

[Danno]

He's ill advised and obsessed with gutting Labour's core. I hate him.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Can you believe this? Unfortunately, yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... econdments

[Puja]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... omen-girls

Meanwhile, the Conservatives and Reform UK are increasingly confident in linking immigration to crime. On Sunday, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said asylum seekers with “medieval attitudes” coming to Britain mean he is afraid for the safety of his three young daughters. Last month, Nigel Farage explicitly claimed increased migration was responsible for a rise in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the UK, pointing to arrivals from – as he put it – “countries in which women aren’t even second-class citizens”. It seems those so-called legitimate concerns now include the fear that asylum seekers are coming over here to rape our women and girls.

It would be easy for the government to dispel such myths by making the facts around sexual violence clear. But when I asked the Home Office if it collects data on criminal offences by asylum seekers, it declined to provide any formal comment. When I asked the Home Office if it would like to put on record that – as was confirmed to me by several refugee and women’s charities – there are no official figures that show asylum seekers are more likely to commit sexual offences than British nationals, it did not respond. It was, however, keen to stress it has just released data about foreign nationals (a term that includes many others who are not asylum seekers) in prisons.

This ambiguity – and outright radio silence – is unhelpful to say the least, but it is also a choice. Tim Naor Hilton, the chief executive of Refugee Action, outlined the facts in black and white. “There is no clear or credible evidence that people seeking asylum commit more crimes, and any data suggesting that must be viewed in the context of systemic bias, including in policing.”

https://goodlawproject.org/gb-news-the- ... a-factory/

But the data that does exist – published by the Child Sexual Exploitation taskforce – shows that 83% of suspects involved with group-based child sexual exploitation called themselves white, with 7% Asian – 2% less than the proportion of Asian ethnic groups in the 2021 census.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypgg28nvpo

Police have been encouraged to consider disclosing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects charged in high-profile cases, after facing mounting pressure over the details they make public.

Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson said the government will want police to release these details in "most cases" in what she welcomed as a positive step.

FIND. THE. MINERALS. TO. CONTRADICT. REFORM. OR. THE. NEXT. ELECTION. WILL. BE. A. REFERENDUM. ON. THE. FICTIONAL. BROKEN-BRITAIN. THEY. ARE. INVENTING.

Or, you know, blame Corbyn for your imminent defeat. Whichevs.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... omen-girls

Meanwhile, the Conservatives and Reform UK are increasingly confident in linking immigration to crime. On Sunday, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick said asylum seekers with “medieval attitudes” coming to Britain mean he is afraid for the safety of his three young daughters. Last month, Nigel Farage explicitly claimed increased migration was responsible for a rise in the number of rapes and sexual assaults in the UK, pointing to arrivals from – as he put it – “countries in which women aren’t even second-class citizens”. It seems those so-called legitimate concerns now include the fear that asylum seekers are coming over here to rape our women and girls.

It would be easy for the government to dispel such myths by making the facts around sexual violence clear. But when I asked the Home Office if it collects data on criminal offences by asylum seekers, it declined to provide any formal comment. When I asked the Home Office if it would like to put on record that – as was confirmed to me by several refugee and women’s charities – there are no official figures that show asylum seekers are more likely to commit sexual offences than British nationals, it did not respond. It was, however, keen to stress it has just released data about foreign nationals (a term that includes many others who are not asylum seekers) in prisons.

This ambiguity – and outright radio silence – is unhelpful to say the least, but it is also a choice. Tim Naor Hilton, the chief executive of Refugee Action, outlined the facts in black and white. “There is no clear or credible evidence that people seeking asylum commit more crimes, and any data suggesting that must be viewed in the context of systemic bias, including in policing.”

https://goodlawproject.org/gb-news-the- ... a-factory/

But the data that does exist – published by the Child Sexual Exploitation taskforce – shows that 83% of suspects involved with group-based child sexual exploitation called themselves white, with 7% Asian – 2% less than the proportion of Asian ethnic groups in the 2021 census.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypgg28nvpo

Police have been encouraged to consider disclosing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects charged in high-profile cases, after facing mounting pressure over the details they make public.

Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson said the government will want police to release these details in "most cases" in what she welcomed as a positive step.

FIND. THE. MINERALS. TO. CONTRADICT. REFORM. OR. THE. NEXT. ELECTION. WILL. BE. A. REFERENDUM. ON. THE. FICTIONAL. BROKEN-BRITAIN. THEY. ARE. INVENTING.

Or, you know, blame Corbyn for your imminent defeat. Whichevs.

Puja

Crazy and depressing. Starmer and McSweeney's strategy is both:

1) Unethical. Obviously, to lie and blame all the ills of society on a scapegoat, weak minority is an appalling thing to do. A clue for the ethically challenged is that Hitler employed the same strategy, as is Trump and all of the rising far-right in Europe.

2) A suicidal strategy for Labour. As has been seen in multiple countries including our own (re the Tories v Reform), this strategy only profits (and generously so) far-right parties, because voters aren't completely stupid and know the real anti-immigrant parties from those who are following a script. It was a disaster for the Tories and it is exactly the same for Labour.

I don't expect Starmer and McSweeney to be troubled by ethics, so let's skip point 1).

Re 2), it seems strange that they just don't seem to get this despite all the evidence, from what is actually affecting them right now. If S & McS were pure pragmatists they would have got this by now. My guess is that a) they are genuinely far-right-leaning, so this strategy is much more natural to them than the liberal approach Starmer espoused when lying to the Labour membership in 2020 and/or b) they are in the pay of the far-right.

McSweeney is the strategist - so he sinks or swims with this - he won't change course.

There is a small chance that a glimmer of pragmatism will get through to Starmer (probably too late) and make him change course. Far more likely will be a token softening of his line in order to try to fool the lefties again. I think he would actually prefer to lose the election than to allow the left of the party back into power.

The only significant hope, therefore, is that the deeply unpopular Starmer is forced out by the Labour MPs AND replaced with a genuinely more left-wing leader.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Right to buy is still making the housing crisis worse:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... port-finds

[Puja]

Polanski wins the Green Party leadership and comes out swinging:



That's a hell of a strident first message after winning the leadership of a national political party. I have to say I quite like it. People are legitimately angry about how broken the country is and how everything has been getting steadily worse for ordinary people, but so far the only politicians interested in speaking to that anger have been Reform and their "solution" of blaming refugees/trans people/the woke.

Hopefully Polanski can break through and harness the anger of decent people to shift the political discourse away from it's continual slide rightwards.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Polanski wins the Green Party leadership and comes out swinging:

That's a hell of a strident first message after winning the leadership of a national political party. I have to say I quite like it. People are legitimately angry about how broken the country is and how everything has been getting steadily worse for ordinary people, but so far the only politicians interested in speaking to that anger have been Reform and their "solution" of blaming refugees/trans people/the woke.

Hopefully Polanski can break through and harness the anger of decent people to shift the political discourse away from it's continual slide rightwards.

Puja

Great stuff, and a real landslide win. Hope they join forces with Corbyn/Sultana (n my dreams, merge with them). Shame Polanski didn't take over 6 months back, maybe the Greens could have taken the purged Labour and independents in . . . now Your Party wants to build momentum of its own and will almost certainly resist a merger.