We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
Mentioning japan and racism
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
I can understand that, but the change is more gradual than that of mass immigration, and the newcomers are more likely to have things in common with those already there, and are the type that they aspire to be
I would guess that if you asked residents of let's say, Dagenham or Eltham, if they would rather their neighbourhood be changed by gentrification or mass immigration, there would be no contest
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
Mentioning japan and racism
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
True story though: Back when I was teaching, we had a demonstration lesson at a (very good) girls' high school for English teachers from all over the prefecture. The kids do "Peace Studies", which includes a chapter on the Holocaust. The kids had been given the assignment of making a play (in English) about what they'd studied in the textbook.
The Holocaust is still obviously a very serious subject for people in Europe, but to these Japanese kids it was a totally different world, like us studying the Vikings. So they'd decided to play it for laughs. They wrote a bunch of gags and strapped on big mock-Jewish noses. This didn't go down as well with some of the foreign teachers as they'd hoped...
Chris Huhne brought crabs home from European Parliament: Vicki Pryce required 'medical intervention', court hears
That marriage really is an ex, isn't it. Wonder what Huhne's defence would be, although since he's not involved in this case his name can be blackened without defence.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
I can understand that, but the change is more gradual than that of mass immigration, and the newcomers are more likely to have things in common with those already there, and are the type that they aspire to be
I would guess that if you asked residents of let's say, Dagenham or Eltham, if they would rather their neighbourhood be changed by gentrification or mass immigration, there would be no contest
I doubt that's true. Gentrification can happen very fast; You get a tipping point when "dangerous" becomes "edgy and hip", and it doesn't take long from there to become actively desirable.
I also don't agree there would be no contest on the change you'd want. Gentrification may literally mean you can't afford to live there.
That said, the residents of Dagenham are probably safe from gentrification for a while.
Chris Huhne brought crabs home from European Parliament: Vicki Pryce required 'medical intervention', court hears
That marriage really is an ex, isn't it. Wonder what Huhne's defence would be, although since he's not involved in this case his name can be blackened without defence.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
slightly tortuous here, Edmund.
Incomers mean you can't live there any more. How is that tortuous?
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
In other word the people Cameron chose to ignore - and still does - while chasing Guardian readers.
I'm not a Guardian reader, and of the four party leaders, Cameron's nearest my mindset, although we differ on a fair few points.
The core of people he's chasing may not include you, but it's certainly wider than just Guardian readers.
Cameron's problem isn't so much who he's chasing, but more why he's not retaining those he's got. To win he needs to manage a broad church and so far he hasn't shown he's capable of doing so.
If tragically the Geneva 2 peace conference collapses, only upside will be the Lib Dems could book Montreux venue, and Iranians mediate
I've got a feeling the people laughing the most about the lib dems will be the labour party,any lib dem thinking voter thinking of switching after this carry on,in my opinion will see labour benefiting.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
Mentioning japan and racism
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
The brazilian-japanese are culturally different, not racially different.
There's typically a combination of Japanese and South American racial characteristics, which can often be exceedingly hot.
Anyhow the fact that the politicians and bureaucrats, wanting immigrants but who would blend with Japanese culture, really did spend a lot of money bringing in a bunch of Brazilians of all people, is a great example of why you need to keep the government as far as possible away from migration policy. (*)
* Unless the underlying logic was eugenic, in which case they totally nailed it.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
Mentioning japan and racism
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
True story though: Back when I was teaching, we had a demonstration lesson at a (very good) girls' high school for English teachers from all over the prefecture. The kids do "Peace Studies", which includes a chapter on the Holocaust. The kids had been given the assignment of making a play (in English) about what they'd studied in the textbook.
The Holocaust is still obviously a very serious subject for people in Europe, but to these Japanese kids it was a totally different world, like us studying the Vikings. So they'd decided to play it for laughs. They wrote a bunch of gags and strapped on big mock-Jewish noses. This didn't go down as well with some of the foreign teachers as they'd hoped...
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
Mentioning japan and racism
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
True story though: Back when I was teaching, we had a demonstration lesson at a (very good) girls' high school for English teachers from all over the prefecture. The kids do "Peace Studies", which includes a chapter on the Holocaust. The kids had been given the assignment of making a play (in English) about what they'd studied in the textbook.
The Holocaust is still obviously a very serious subject for people in Europe, but to these Japanese kids it was a totally different world, like us studying the Vikings. So they'd decided to play it for laughs. They wrote a bunch of gags and strapped on big mock-Jewish noses. This didn't go down as well with some of the foreign teachers as they'd hoped...
Were any of the foreign teachers Jewish?
Yup. One had a grandparent who'd survived the concentration camps.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
slightly tortuous here, Edmund.
Incomers mean you can't live there any more. How is that tortuous?
First, fewer than 1 in ten privately, and 2 in ten socially, rent their homes. Assuming Jocasta's arrival to the area is not sufficient reason for the council to expel their tenants that leaves 1 in ten. So in broad terms more people benefit from gentrification than not on the premise that gentrification brings about property asset price inflation.
Secondly, studies have shown that gentrification doesn't negatively impact prior residents as moments on google have confirmed my intuitive common sense feeling.
By all means feel free to avail yourself of the internet also on this matter.
You might also reflect on why it would be that, as you write:
"the residents of Dagenham are probably safe from gentrification for a while."
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
slightly tortuous here, Edmund.
If you prefer a different example, take the rather contentious topic of Anglo-Welsh immigration, where Welsh speaking communities are unhappy that the migrant English are moving in changing the culture and eroding the language spoken.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
Mentioning japan and racism
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
True story though: Back when I was teaching, we had a demonstration lesson at a (very good) girls' high school for English teachers from all over the prefecture. The kids do "Peace Studies", which includes a chapter on the Holocaust. The kids had been given the assignment of making a play (in English) about what they'd studied in the textbook.
The Holocaust is still obviously a very serious subject for people in Europe, but to these Japanese kids it was a totally different world, like us studying the Vikings. So they'd decided to play it for laughs. They wrote a bunch of gags and strapped on big mock-Jewish noses. This didn't go down as well with some of the foreign teachers as they'd hoped...
Were any of the foreign teachers Jewish?
Yup. One had a grandparent who'd survived the concentration camps.
Urgent question on Syrian refugees at 3.30pm. Other countries helping UN programme for most vulnerable refugees, but so far UK has refused
So let's get this right,labour would take in 300 to 500 Syrian refugee's out of 7 to 9 million,WTF will that do in the scheme of things.
Didn't Britain take in over a thousand Syrian asylum seekers last year ? the best thing is for the refugee's to be close to the borders of Syria with Britain giving one of the biggest aid donations in the world.
If any countries who should be taking thousands of people in from this conflict,are Iran,Russia and Saudi Arabia.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
slightly tortuous here, Edmund.
If you prefer a different example, take the rather contentious topic of Anglo-Welsh immigration, where Welsh speaking communities are unhappy that the migrant English are moving in changing the culture and eroding the language spoken.
No idea of that situation, even google doesn't help me. But perhaps it is a typical example of a population believing the immigration "problem" to be greater than it actually is.
By all means feel free to avail yourself of the internet also on this matter.
It's generally better to link to the actual thing you read rather than leaving everyone to guess. On a lot of measures immigration will be good for areas overall, too. The issue here is that in either case there's a minority who are either objectively getting screwed or just made very uncomfortable by the change.
"And I’m afraid for you that it is the same story with our railways, but not in the way you envisage. You see, our rail privatisation occurred as part of an EU directive, too. It’s a conversation I have had with Bob Crow, who is very keen to renationalise the railways. But we can’t do is as members of the EU."
UKIP offering rail nationalisation would certainly throw Labour into a spin. A popular policy, that requires leaving the EU.
Nigel Farage does not known what he's talking about. It's perfectly possible to have nationalised railways whilst remaining in the EU: many countries manage it well. It just won't be BR, which is not something we want to go back to anyway.
For instance Deutsche Bahn AG is a private company with the state as its major shareholder.
Similarly, the SNCF is state owned, as is their infrastructure arm RRF.
The EU did not say they had to be privatised; just that the operations management (i..e running trains) and infrastructure had to be split (1) to allow for competition. There are many ways of doing this; ours has been remarkably successful, albeit by accident.
Whether nationalisation is the right way to go is a different matter. BR was fundamentally starved of investment, and a renationalised railway could well suffer the same problem. Why invest in the railways when the NHS, education or tax credits (sorry, Nick) are more important electoral bribes?
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
In other word the people Cameron chose to ignore - and still does - while chasing Guardian readers.
I'm not a Guardian reader, and of the four party leaders, Cameron's nearest my mindset, although we differ on a fair few points.
The core of people he's chasing may not include you, but it's certainly wider than just Guardian readers.
Cameron's problem isn't so much who he's chasing, but more why he's not retaining those he's got. To win he needs to manage a broad church and so far he hasn't shown he's capable of doing so.
Really? There seems to be a great deal of heat and noise from the right-wing of the party, along with toys being thrown out of prams, but the Conservatives vote share isn't massively down on 2010 - only 3-6, depending on the poll.
I'd say that's still indicative of quite a broad church. Perhaps you're the apostate, not Cameron?
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
slightly tortuous here, Edmund.
If you prefer a different example, take the rather contentious topic of Anglo-Welsh immigration, where Welsh speaking communities are unhappy that the migrant English are moving in changing the culture and eroding the language spoken.
No idea of that situation, even google doesn't help me. But perhaps it is a typical example of a population believing the immigration "problem" to be greater than it actually is.
I thought part of the problem was incomers buying up houses, pricing the locals out of the market and then leaving a holiday home which is empty for three quarters of the year.
This story can equally be stood on its head to say that the tories are the only party doing worse than their leader. Which version you choose depends on whether you think that in voting for their local candidate voters are really voting for him/her, his party or his party's leader.
@edmundintokyo 's comment about me working for OGw, brought to mind the line "you say you work for yourself and its the only way" from The Jam song 'Scrape Away' off my fav album "Sound Affects"... This led to me listening to the whole album, and to the conclusion that the song "Set The House Ablaze" is the best song to describe the frustration of wanting to change something (politically) then the exhilaration of finding a like minded person (or party)
Tim Wigmore has written an interesting article on UKIP and its threat to labour in the North in the Telegraph.
No wonder Rachel Reeves is proposing labour get tough on benefits.
Foxes to 'get tough' on chicken coop raids....
Wow that article makes it sound as if UKIP will be very strong in Northern constituencies over the next 10 years or so... Amazing
"The caricature of Ukip as a party for disaffected golf club types doesn't hold in the North. It has a more abrasive, working-class image here, embodied by its deputy leader Paul Nuttall. A bald, comprehensive-educated Liverpudlian, Mr Nuttall explains that Ukip is trying to exploit the "definite sense the patriotic Old Labour working class don't seem taken by the New Labour project".
Echoes what I have been saying for a long time, and there are plenty of places in the South (poorer parts of Essex and Kent) where I would think there are people with similar feelings
In other word the people Cameron chose to ignore - and still does - while chasing Guardian readers.
I'm not a Guardian reader, and of the four party leaders, Cameron's nearest my mindset, although we differ on a fair few points.
The core of people he's chasing may not include you, but it's certainly wider than just Guardian readers.
Cameron's problem isn't so much who he's chasing, but more why he's not retaining those he's got. To win he needs to manage a broad church and so far he hasn't shown he's capable of doing so.
Really? There seems to be a great deal of heat and noise from the right-wing of the party, along with toys being thrown out of prams, but the Conservatives vote share isn't massively down on 2010 - only 3-6, depending on the poll.
I'd say that's still indicative of quite a broad church. Perhaps you're the apostate, not Cameron?
Quite the reverse, I simply pointed out to you that what cost Cameron his majority was an inability to manage a broad church and he hasn't made it any broader since he became PM. He already suffers from an image problem of being remote from ordinary life and has done nothing much to counterbalance it. His pointless attacks on his own party simply have switched a lot of his supporters off as have jibes at kippers. And his problem isn't 3-6% his problem is about 10% since that what he's going to need to secure a majority in his own right from where he is today. Both Thatcher and Blair managed to appeal to a centrist block while keeping their core supporters on board, Cameron hasn't.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
slightly tortuous here, Edmund.
If you prefer a different example, take the rather contentious topic of Anglo-Welsh immigration, where Welsh speaking communities are unhappy that the migrant English are moving in changing the culture and eroding the language spoken.
No idea of that situation, even google doesn't help me. But perhaps it is a typical example of a population believing the immigration "problem" to be greater than it actually is.
The short versions being a fight over whether councils should try and protect welsh-speaking communities, how much they should do, and what they legally can do.
By all means feel free to avail yourself of the internet also on this matter.
It's generally better to link to the actual thing you read rather than leaving everyone to guess. On a lot of measures immigration will be good for areas overall, too. The issue here is that in either case there's a minority who are either objectively getting screwed or just made very uncomfortable by the change.
You will be able to find articles by David Madden who disagrees.
I think immigration is extremely good for the country.
But we are (I was) talking about the terms of the immigration debate and how it has been and is closed down and how the Kippers are making capital out of this.
You are, because it is what you sincerely believe, telling people what they should and shouldn't be worried about and anyway it is only a minority. And hence, to repeat my earlier comment, you are not debating but delegitimising the views of those who don't think it is 100% ok to have the character of their area changed completely by mass immigration.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Doesn't Japan pay brazilian-japanese immigrants to leave?
Mentioning japan and racism
Nippon airlines apologises for 'racist' advert that pokes fun at Westerners' big noses and blonde hair
True story though: Back when I was teaching, we had a demonstration lesson at a (very good) girls' high school for English teachers from all over the prefecture. The kids do "Peace Studies", which includes a chapter on the Holocaust. The kids had been given the assignment of making a play (in English) about what they'd studied in the textbook.
The Holocaust is still obviously a very serious subject for people in Europe, but to these Japanese kids it was a totally different world, like us studying the Vikings. So they'd decided to play it for laughs. They wrote a bunch of gags and strapped on big mock-Jewish noses. This didn't go down as well with some of the foreign teachers as they'd hoped...
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
slightly tortuous here, Edmund.
If you prefer a different example, take the rather contentious topic of Anglo-Welsh immigration, where Welsh speaking communities are unhappy that the migrant English are moving in changing the culture and eroding the language spoken.
No idea of that situation, even google doesn't help me. But perhaps it is a typical example of a population believing the immigration "problem" to be greater than it actually is.
The short versions being a fight over whether councils should try and protect welsh-speaking communities, how much they should do, and what they legally can do.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
slightly tortuous here, Edmund.
If you prefer a different example, take the rather contentious topic of Anglo-Welsh immigration, where Welsh speaking communities are unhappy that the migrant English are moving in changing the culture and eroding the language spoken.
No idea of that situation, even google doesn't help me. But perhaps it is a typical example of a population believing the immigration "problem" to be greater than it actually is.
I thought part of the problem was incomers buying up houses, pricing the locals out of the market and then leaving a holiday home which is empty for three quarters of the year.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 1 min Sky Sources: Lib Dem ex-Chief Exec Lord Rennard suspended from the party pending disciplinary proceedings after harassment allegations
How can he be suspended when he's been found 'not guilty'?
"The news follows The Telegraph's weekend report that the Co-op Group is to cut its £850,000 annual donation to the Labour Party as a result of the problems at its banking arm.
Lord Myners, who is carrying out a review of the mutual's corporate governance and relationship with third parties, confirmed that his study will lead to a reduction in the funding the Co-op gives to the party."
By all means feel free to avail yourself of the internet also on this matter.
It's generally better to link to the actual thing you read rather than leaving everyone to guess. On a lot of measures immigration will be good for areas overall, too. The issue here is that in either case there's a minority who are either objectively getting screwed or just made very uncomfortable by the change.
You will be able to find articles by David Madden who disagrees.
These are saying that gentrification is economically good for an area's previous residents overall. This doesn't mean it isn't screwing a minority of those residents, or that they're not being made to feel uncomfortable. Is there any evidence that the same isn't true of immigration?
You are, because it is what you sincerely believe, telling people what they should and shouldn't be worried about and anyway it is only a minority. And hence, to repeat my earlier comment, you are not debating but delegitimising the views of those who don't think it is 100% ok to have the character of their area changed completely by mass immigration.
I'm not sure how I can put this any more clearly. I'm saying that a minority of people will, objectively, be made worse off by change. I'm also saying some people will be made to feel uncomfortable by change. But I don't think the government should be trying to prevent these things, especially as the change seems to be beneficial overall and government intervention can be very harmful.
By all means feel free to avail yourself of the internet also on this matter.
It's generally better to link to the actual thing you read rather than leaving everyone to guess. On a lot of measures immigration will be good for areas overall, too. The issue here is that in either case there's a minority who are either objectively getting screwed or just made very uncomfortable by the change.
You will be able to find articles by David Madden who disagrees.
These are saying that gentrification is economically good for an area's previous residents overall. This doesn't mean it isn't screwing a minority of those residents, or that they're not being made to feel uncomfortable. Is there any evidence that the same isn't true of immigration?
You are, because it is what you sincerely believe, telling people what they should and shouldn't be worried about and anyway it is only a minority. And hence, to repeat my earlier comment, you are not debating but delegitimising the views of those who don't think it is 100% ok to have the character of their area changed completely by mass immigration.
I'm not sure how I can put this any more clearly. I'm saying that a minority of people will, objectively, be made worse off by change. I'm also saying some people will be made to feel uncomfortable by change. But I don't think the government should be trying to prevent these things, especially as the change seems to be beneficial overall and government intervention can be very harmful.
"...government intervention can be very harmful"
The intervention of Tony Blair's government caused the changes
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 1 min Sky Sources: Lib Dem ex-Chief Exec Lord Rennard suspended from the party pending disciplinary proceedings after harassment allegations
How can he be suspended when he's been found 'not guilty'?
Correct. He can't, except by trickery and mala fides...
"At its core, bad faith implies malice or ill will. A decision made in bad faith is grounded, not on a rational connection between the circumstances and the outcome, but on antipathy toward the individual for non-rational reasons ... The absence of a rational basis for the decision implies that factors other than those relevant were considered. In that sense, a decision in bad faith is also arbitrary. These comments are not intended to put to rest the debate over the definition of bad faith. Rather, it is to point out that bad faith, which has its core in malice and ill will, at least touches, if not wholly embraces, the related concepts of unreasonableness, discrimination and arbitrariness." [from a Canadian case]
By all means feel free to avail yourself of the internet also on this matter.
It's generally better to link to the actual thing you read rather than leaving everyone to guess. On a lot of measures immigration will be good for areas overall, too. The issue here is that in either case there's a minority who are either objectively getting screwed or just made very uncomfortable by the change.
You will be able to find articles by David Madden who disagrees.
These are saying that gentrification is economically good for an area's previous residents overall. This doesn't mean it isn't screwing a minority of those residents, or that they're not being made to feel uncomfortable. Is there any evidence that the same isn't true of immigration?
You are, because it is what you sincerely believe, telling people what they should and shouldn't be worried about and anyway it is only a minority. And hence, to repeat my earlier comment, you are not debating but delegitimising the views of those who don't think it is 100% ok to have the character of their area changed completely by mass immigration.
I'm not sure how I can put this any more clearly. I'm saying that a minority of people will, objectively, be made worse off by change. I'm also saying some people will be made to feel uncomfortable by change. But I don't think the government should be trying to prevent these things, especially as the change seems to be beneficial overall and government intervention can be very harmful.
"...government intervention can be very harmful"
The intervention of Tony Blair's government caused the changes
Migration restrictions are by definition government intervention in people's ability to come and go.
By all means feel free to avail yourself of the internet also on this matter.
It's generally better to link to the actual thing you read rather than leaving everyone to guess. On a lot of measures immigration will be good for areas overall, too. The issue here is that in either case there's a minority who are either objectively getting screwed or just made very uncomfortable by the change.
You will be able to find articles by David Madden who disagrees.
These are saying that gentrification is economically good for an area's previous residents overall. This doesn't mean it isn't screwing a minority of those residents, or that they're not being made to feel uncomfortable. Is there any evidence that the same isn't true of immigration?
You are, because it is what you sincerely believe, telling people what they should and shouldn't be worried about and anyway it is only a minority. And hence, to repeat my earlier comment, you are not debating but delegitimising the views of those who don't think it is 100% ok to have the character of their area changed completely by mass immigration.
I'm not sure how I can put this any more clearly. I'm saying that a minority of people will, objectively, be made worse off by change. I'm also saying some people will be made to feel uncomfortable by change. But I don't think the government should be trying to prevent these things, especially as the change seems to be beneficial overall and government intervention can be very harmful.
"...government intervention can be very harmful"
The intervention of Tony Blair's government caused the changes
Migration restrictions are by definition government intervention in people's ability to come and go.
As lifting migration restrictions are government intervention in the make up of poorer people's neighbourhoods
"The news follows The Telegraph's weekend report that the Co-op Group is to cut its £850,000 annual donation to the Labour Party as a result of the problems at its banking arm.
Lord Myners, who is carrying out a review of the mutual's corporate governance and relationship with third parties, confirmed that his study will lead to a reduction in the funding the Co-op gives to the party."
Nah, H, tim and IOS told us the Co-op problems would have no knock on effect for Labour. I'm sure that big loan will just keep on floating ever higher.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 1 min Sky Sources: Lib Dem ex-Chief Exec Lord Rennard suspended from the party pending disciplinary proceedings after harassment allegations
How can he be suspended when he's been found 'not guilty'?
Here come the lawyers - Rennard obv thinks he is more important than Clegg.
Migration restrictions are by definition government intervention in people's ability to come and go.
As lifting migration restrictions are government intervention in the make up of poorer people's neighbourhoods
I see what you're getting at, but I think there's something wonky in that line of thought. When East Germany stopped shooting people trying to get from East Berlin to West Berlin, was that a government intervention in population flows into West Berlin? I suppose it was, sort-of.
Migration restrictions are by definition government intervention in people's ability to come and go.
As lifting migration restrictions are government intervention in the make up of poorer people's neighbourhoods
I see what you're getting at, but I think there's something wonky in that line of thought. When East Germany stopped shooting people trying to get from East Berlin to West Berlin, was that a government intervention in population flows into West Berlin? I suppose it was, sort-of.
You can see what he's getting at but in your world that doesn't count.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 1 min Sky Sources: Lib Dem ex-Chief Exec Lord Rennard suspended from the party pending disciplinary proceedings after harassment allegations
How can he be suspended when he's been found 'not guilty'?
Here come the lawyers - Rennard obv thinks he is more important than Clegg.
I'm not going to excuse Rennard, he seems like an utter sleazeball to me, but either you have rules as a party, or you don't.
Rennard wasn't found guilty under those rules, so why now suspend him anyway? Does seem to me like CD13 said, either you drown innocent, or you're a witch..
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 1 min Sky Sources: Lib Dem ex-Chief Exec Lord Rennard suspended from the party pending disciplinary proceedings after harassment allegations
How can he be suspended when he's been found 'not guilty'?
Here come the lawyers - Rennard obv thinks he is more important than Clegg.
I'm not going to excuse Rennard, he seems like an utter sleazeball to me, but either you have rules as a party, or you don't.
Rennard wasn't found guilty under those rules, so why now suspend him anyway? Does seem to me like CD13 said, either you drown innocent, or you're a witch..
There are the party rules and there is the rules of the big bad world of politics and the media.
Lord R obviously think the long term benefits of having him onboard are bigger than the short term damage to the LDs and Clegg.
Migration restrictions are by definition government intervention in people's ability to come and go.
As lifting migration restrictions are government intervention in the make up of poorer people's neighbourhoods
I see what you're getting at, but I think there's something wonky in that line of thought. When East Germany stopped shooting people trying to get from East Berlin to West Berlin, was that a government intervention in population flows into West Berlin? I suppose it was, sort-of.
You can see what he's getting at but in your world that doesn't count.
No, I'm partly persuaded. I mean, if you imagine a country opening a border specifically with the goal of destabilizing a small country next door, that involves the government doing less (they're no longer guarding that bit of the border), but it feels like an intervention. On the other hand, the Berlin example doesn't feel like an intervention, it feels like the government stopping doing something, which is how I'd see a general relaxation of migration policy. I guess it must depend on the motive.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 1 min Sky Sources: Lib Dem ex-Chief Exec Lord Rennard suspended from the party pending disciplinary proceedings after harassment allegations
How can he be suspended when he's been found 'not guilty'?
Here come the lawyers - Rennard obv thinks he is more important than Clegg.
I'm not going to excuse Rennard, he seems like an utter sleazeball to me, but either you have rules as a party, or you don't.
Rennard wasn't found guilty under those rules, so why now suspend him anyway? Does seem to me like CD13 said, either you drown innocent, or you're a witch..
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 1 min Sky Sources: Lib Dem ex-Chief Exec Lord Rennard suspended from the party pending disciplinary proceedings after harassment allegations
How can he be suspended when he's been found 'not guilty'?
Correct. He can't, except by trickery and mala fides...
"At its core, bad faith implies malice or ill will. A decision made in bad faith is grounded, not on a rational connection between the circumstances and the outcome, but on antipathy toward the individual for non-rational reasons ... The absence of a rational basis for the decision implies that factors other than those relevant were considered. In that sense, a decision in bad faith is also arbitrary. These comments are not intended to put to rest the debate over the definition of bad faith. Rather, it is to point out that bad faith, which has its core in malice and ill will, at least touches, if not wholly embraces, the related concepts of unreasonableness, discrimination and arbitrariness." [from a Canadian case]
They're coming back around on a different charge.
The original judgment was that his actions caused distress and hence he should apologise, but since you couldn't prove intent beyond reasonable doubt he couldn't be found guilty.
The current charge is that by refusing to apologise, even an apology based on unintentionally causing distress, he is bringing the party into disrepute.
Rennard wasn't found guilty under those rules, so why now suspend him anyway?
Presumably there has been a new accusation of bringing the party into disrepute (or some other breach of the rules) and he has been suspended pending investigation of that.
Backed Ferrer to beat Berdych (2.46 on Betfair). He's got a 7:4 winning record, or 4:2 on hard courts. Not a dead cert, of course, but I would've put him odds on to win.
Migration restrictions are by definition government intervention in people's ability to come and go.
As lifting migration restrictions are government intervention in the make up of poorer people's neighbourhoods
I see what you're getting at, but I think there's something wonky in that line of thought. When East Germany stopped shooting people trying to get from East Berlin to West Berlin, was that a government intervention in population flows into West Berlin? I suppose it was, sort-of.
You can see what he's getting at but in your world that doesn't count.
No, I'm partly persuaded. I mean, if you imagine a country opening a border specifically with the goal of destabilizing a small country next door, that involves the government doing less (they're no longer guarding that bit of the border), but it feels like an intervention. On the other hand, the Berlin example doesn't feel like an intervention, it feels like the government stopping doing something, which is how I'd see a general relaxation of migration policy. I guess it must depend on the motive.
I am talking about the accession 8 countries being allowed unrestricted freedom of movement by the Labour party in 2004. That was government intervention changing communities without the consent of the voter. Some people think it was a good idea, I disagree, but that is irrelevant to our conversation. I don't think it is right to say that restricting immigration is government intervention without admitting that the opposite was also true.
Unless I've misunderstood something, often happens
The problem Clegg has is that he expected Rennard to put party before self, cover himself in the hairshirt and give out a holier than thou apology for his actions.
It is what the whole Lib Dem strategy was based around on this - Rennard playing ball. But he hasn't.
I don't think that even Kafka came up with the wheeze of finding someone guilty because he's refused to admit a charge of which he's been found innocent.
We're all dancing around this a bit. I think @Sam's issue is - should it be ok for a neighbourhood to change completely in character as a result of immigration.
I don't see why not. Do people opposed to this think the government should be stepping in to prevent a neighbourhood changing completely for some other reason, like gentrification?
Wouldn't gentrification be a financial and social positive for poor people in the neighbourhood and therefore welcomed?
Gentrification is good news if you own your home, but potentially very bad news indeed if you couldn't afford to buy and have to rent. People often become literally unable to afford to live in the area where they grew up and where all their friends live. That's even if they can put up with the social changes they may not like, like the pub where they've always gone completely changing in character to suit the incomers.
slightly tortuous here, Edmund.
If you prefer a different example, take the rather contentious topic of Anglo-Welsh immigration, where Welsh speaking communities are unhappy that the migrant English are moving in changing the culture and eroding the language spoken.
No idea of that situation, even google doesn't help me. But perhaps it is a typical example of a population believing the immigration "problem" to be greater than it actually is.
I thought part of the problem was incomers buying up houses, pricing the locals out of the market and then leaving a holiday home which is empty for three quarters of the year.
A holiday home in Dalston?
It is, if course, worth remembering that the Aldgate area - where I used to live during 1997-2003 - was exactly like Dalston is now.
And I think it's fair to say the traditional residents of that area (as well as nearby Shoreditch and Hoxton) are being priced out of the area. It used to be full of recent Asian immigrants, and strange forbidding shops with signs in a language I was unable to read.
Now it's full of over-priced cocktail bars. And two bedroom flats that sell for £2.7m. (My landlord offered to sell me the six bedroom house my friends and I lived in for £550,000. It's fair to say that that would now cost £5.5m.)
Rennard : "I will not offer an apology to the four women complainants. I do not believe that people should be forced to say what they know they should not say, or do not mean."
Rennard is a Westminster village story. I hope this doesn't sound too self-centered and I have a simple test for this. I am someone who is actively interested in politics and reads this blog (as well as uk pollingreport and BBC news) at least twice a day. If I have to actively make an effort to research a story to find out what all the fuss is about, then I generally conclude that the much more apathetic population probably won't have a clue either and might care even less.
The last few days I've seen a lot of 'Rennard this..', 'Rennard that', 'He said', 'She said..', 'S3xual harassment', 'Peer' and 'Liberal Democrat'. But that's basically alI I clocked from skimming the threads.
Mr. Royale, that was my feeling a few days ago. However, it was the top story on the news and I do get the feeling it will be much more serious than I'd first thought.
I don't think that even Kafka came up with the wheeze of finding someone guilty because he's refused to admit a charge of which he's been found innocent.
Richard.
The inquiry found that the only aspect with insufficient evidence was whether he acted intentionally.
An apology was warranted even if he unintentionally caused distress.
Rennard is a Westminster village story. I hope this doesn't sound too self-centered and I have a simple test for this. I am someone who is actively interested in politics and reads this blog (as well as uk pollingreport and BBC news) at least twice a day. If I have to actively make an effort to research a story to find out what all the fuss is about, then I generally conclude that the much more apathetic population probably won't have a clue either and might care even less.
The last few days I've seen a lot of 'Rennard this..', 'Rennard that', 'He said', 'She said..', 'S3xual harassment', 'Peer' and 'Liberal Democrat'. But that's basically alI I clocked from skimming the threads.
Quite frankly, it's a bit boring.
In fairness, I think Rennard has a legitimate grievance.
BBC: - Lib Dem peer Lord Rennard has been suspended from the party after declining to apologise over sexual harassment claims.
Looks as though we’ve moved into the next phase of a battle of wills – Clegg says apologise, Rennard says no. – This is becoming rather damaging for all concerned; I’m sure others are wondering whose running the party as Clegg appears caught in the headlights of inaction.
The original judgment was that his actions caused distress and hence he should apologise, but since you couldn't prove intent beyond reasonable doubt he couldn't be found guilty.
The current charge is that by refusing to apologise, even an apology based on unintentionally causing distress, he is bringing the party into disrepute.
Which is manifestly unjust and lacking in good faith, since the 'apology demand' was not a lawful instruction of the party under its own rules and procedures, just an afterthought tacked on to his formal acquittal...
Rennard is a Westminster village story. I hope this doesn't sound too self-centered and I have a simple test for this. I am someone who is actively interested in politics and reads this blog (as well as uk pollingreport and BBC news) at least twice a day. If I have to actively make an effort to research a story to find out what all the fuss is about, then I generally conclude that the much more apathetic population probably won't have a clue either and might care even less.
The last few days I've seen a lot of 'Rennard this..', 'Rennard that', 'He said', 'She said..', 'S3xual harassment', 'Peer' and 'Liberal Democrat'. But that's basically alI I clocked from skimming the threads.
Quite frankly, it's a bit boring.
In fairness, I think Rennard has a legitimate grievance.
Rennard does have a legitimate grievance.
At the same time, I feel for Clegg. All he wants is a non-apology apology from Rennard: "As the investigation clearly shows, I did nothing that was inappropriate or wrong. However, I may have inadvertently caused some people to feel discomfort - and for that I apologise."
On topic, I'm not sure Cameron has learnt yet (or will ever learn) how to handle seemingly contrary evidence.
On the one hand, he reads (and is told) that he's much more popular than his party and enjoys very strong levels of support from Conservative voters. At one point, it was nigh on 100%. On the other hand, his leadership has been characterised by the haemorrhaging of party members, activists and he is none too popular with plenty of his backbenchers either.
The simple conclusion is to say it's one or t'other and, naturally, you'd think the Cameroons would plump for the voters, thank you very much.
But the problem is that it's not that simple. A leader will always make enemies, and almost always progressively less popular as time goes by, but a good and perceptive leader would recognise that these choices are not mutually exclusive. The polite, patient and respective engagement of the party and its supporters - building support for each initiative, making the case and, most importantly, time for them - does not need to come at the cost of relative popularity amongst the voters at large.
It's called leadership, and good leaders don't dictate. They inspire and excite the building of a broad coalition to follow them.
BBC: - Lib Dem peer Lord Rennard has been suspended from the party after declining to apologise over sexual harassment claims.
Looks as though we’ve moved into the next phase of a battle of wills – Clegg says apologise, Rennard says no. – This is becoming rather damaging for all concerned; I’m sure others are wondering whose running the party as Clegg appears caught in the headlights of inaction.
Which is the tension between democracy and delegation of power on the one hand, and the authority of the leadership on the other. If you set up the rules specifically to deny the leadership powers to act in cases like this, you have to accept the blame when it all ends up in an unseemly (if theoretically fair) mess.
Rennard is a Westminster village story. I hope this doesn't sound too self-centered and I have a simple test for this. I am someone who is actively interested in politics and reads this blog (as well as uk pollingreport and BBC news) at least twice a day. If I have to actively make an effort to research a story to find out what all the fuss is about, then I generally conclude that the much more apathetic population probably won't have a clue either and might care even less.
The last few days I've seen a lot of 'Rennard this..', 'Rennard that', 'He said', 'She said..', 'S3xual harassment', 'Peer' and 'Liberal Democrat'. But that's basically alI I clocked from skimming the threads.
Quite frankly, it's a bit boring.
In fairness, I think Rennard has a legitimate grievance.
Perhaps. All I'm saying is that I don't think the broader public will notice, or care, that much and I don't think it'll affect voting intentions very much, if at all.
The original judgment was that his actions caused distress and hence he should apologise, but since you couldn't prove intent beyond reasonable doubt he couldn't be found guilty.
The current charge is that by refusing to apologise, even an apology based on unintentionally causing distress, he is bringing the party into disrepute.
Which is manifestly unjust and lacking in good faith, since the 'apology demand' was not a lawful instruction of the party under its own rules and procedures, just an afterthought tacked on to his formal acquittal...
The lack of apology is in itself the grounds for the charge, irrespective of the calls for it.
Rennard say's in his statement that he is a sick man. That may be, but the statement itself is sick; made by a seemingly sick mind. He even talks of self harming his own person, as well a sobbing about how hard done by he is. Rather disgusting; rather than taking it like a man, he bawls like a baby.
The lack of apology is in itself the grounds for the charge, irrespective of the calls for it.
Please elaborate.
If someone acted wrongly but did so unintentionally, an apology is warranted. It is the lack of apology, rather than defiance of those calling for an apology that is the point.
I don't think that even Kafka came up with the wheeze of finding someone guilty because he's refused to admit a charge of which he's been found innocent.
Richard.
The inquiry found that the only aspect with insufficient evidence was whether he acted intentionally.
An apology was warranted even if he unintentionally caused distress.
'The inquiry found...'
There was no inquiry. The Investigator found there was insufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry as to whether Rennard had brought the party into disrepute.
I don't think that even Kafka came up with the wheeze of finding someone guilty because he's refused to admit a charge of which he's been found innocent.
Richard.
The inquiry found that the only aspect with insufficient evidence was whether he acted intentionally.
An apology was warranted even if he unintentionally caused distress.
'The inquiry found...'
There was no inquiry. The Investigator found there was insufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry as to whether Rennard had brought the party into disrepute.
My apologies, the investigation found that "the evidence of behaviour which violated the personal space and autonomy of the complainants was broadly credible. However, it is my judgment, considering all of the evidence collected, that it is unlikely that it could be established beyond reasonable doubt that Lord Rennard had intended to act in an indecent or sexually inappropriate way."
And hence without intent a charge was unlikely to succeed.
Comments
I would guess that if you asked residents of let's say, Dagenham or Eltham, if they would rather their neighbourhood be changed by gentrification or mass immigration, there would be no contest
True story though: Back when I was teaching, we had a demonstration lesson at a (very good) girls' high school for English teachers from all over the prefecture. The kids do "Peace Studies", which includes a chapter on the Holocaust. The kids had been given the assignment of making a play (in English) about what they'd studied in the textbook.
The Holocaust is still obviously a very serious subject for people in Europe, but to these Japanese kids it was a totally different world, like us studying the Vikings. So they'd decided to play it for laughs. They wrote a bunch of gags and strapped on big mock-Jewish noses. This didn't go down as well with some of the foreign teachers as they'd hoped...
I also don't agree there would be no contest on the change you'd want. Gentrification may literally mean you can't afford to live there.
That said, the residents of Dagenham are probably safe from gentrification for a while.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/01/17/court-told-that-mail-on-sunday-probed-chris-huhne-over-liaisons-with-men-and-crabs-infection/
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 5m
If tragically the Geneva 2 peace conference collapses, only upside will be the Lib Dems could book Montreux venue, and Iranians mediate
Anyhow the fact that the politicians and bureaucrats, wanting immigrants but who would blend with Japanese culture, really did spend a lot of money bringing in a bunch of Brazilians of all people, is a great example of why you need to keep the government as far as possible away from migration policy. (*)
* Unless the underlying logic was eugenic, in which case they totally nailed it.
Secondly, studies have shown that gentrification doesn't negatively impact prior residents as moments on google have confirmed my intuitive common sense feeling.
By all means feel free to avail yourself of the internet also on this matter.
You might also reflect on why it would be that, as you write:
"the residents of Dagenham are probably safe from gentrification for a while."
Yvette Cooper @YvetteCooperMP
Urgent question on Syrian refugees at 3.30pm. Other countries helping UN programme for most vulnerable refugees, but so far UK has refused
So let's get this right,labour would take in 300 to 500 Syrian refugee's out of 7 to 9 million,WTF will that do in the scheme of things.
Didn't Britain take in over a thousand Syrian asylum seekers last year ? the best thing is for the refugee's to be close to the borders of Syria with Britain giving one of the biggest aid donations in the world.
If any countries who should be taking thousands of people in from this conflict,are Iran,Russia and Saudi Arabia.
For instance Deutsche Bahn AG is a private company with the state as its major shareholder.
Similarly, the SNCF is state owned, as is their infrastructure arm RRF.
The EU did not say they had to be privatised; just that the operations management (i..e running trains) and infrastructure had to be split (1) to allow for competition. There are many ways of doing this; ours has been remarkably successful, albeit by accident.
Whether nationalisation is the right way to go is a different matter. BR was fundamentally starved of investment, and a renationalised railway could well suffer the same problem. Why invest in the railways when the NHS, education or tax credits (sorry, Nick) are more important electoral bribes?
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Directive_91/440
I'd say that's still indicative of quite a broad church. Perhaps you're the apostate, not Cameron?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gordon-David-Cameron-Cardboard-Cutouts/dp/B003JLT1O8/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kh_8
and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fan-Pack-Miliband-Lifesize-Cardboard/dp/B00GMTMKBU/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kh_6
I now have so many unanswered questions in my mind
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-language-risk-lifestyle-refugees-4306224
as one link.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/new-blow-welsh-language-communities-3901514
as another.
The short versions being a fight over whether councils should try and protect welsh-speaking communities, how much they should do, and what they legally can do.
blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/11/09/number-of-the-week-the-benefits-of-gentrification/
content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1818255,00.html
You will be able to find articles by David Madden who disagrees.
I think immigration is extremely good for the country.
But we are (I was) talking about the terms of the immigration debate and how it has been and is closed down and how the Kippers are making capital out of this.
You are, because it is what you sincerely believe, telling people what they should and shouldn't be worried about and anyway it is only a minority. And hence, to repeat my earlier comment, you are not debating but delegitimising the views of those who don't think it is 100% ok to have the character of their area changed completely by mass immigration.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-01-20/lord-rennard-supporter-apologises-for-crass-comments/
https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant
Has Rennard really not been given a copy of the report?
Oh feck!
They really do want to commit suicide....
Sky Sources: Lib Dem ex-Chief Exec Lord Rennard suspended from the party pending disciplinary proceedings after harassment allegations
How can he be suspended when he's been found 'not guilty'?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10583530/Co-op-pulls-sale-of-general-insurance-arm.html
"The news follows The Telegraph's weekend report that the Co-op Group is to cut its £850,000 annual donation to the Labour Party as a result of the problems at its banking arm.
Lord Myners, who is carrying out a review of the mutual's corporate governance and relationship with third parties, confirmed that his study will lead to a reduction in the funding the Co-op gives to the party."
The intervention of Tony Blair's government caused the changes
"At its core, bad faith implies malice or ill will. A decision made in bad faith is grounded, not on a rational connection between the circumstances and the outcome, but on antipathy toward the individual for non-rational reasons ... The absence of a rational basis for the decision implies that factors other than those relevant were considered. In that sense, a decision in bad faith is also arbitrary. These comments are not intended to put to rest the debate over the definition of bad faith. Rather, it is to point out that bad faith, which has its core in malice and ill will, at least touches, if not wholly embraces, the related concepts of unreasonableness, discrimination and arbitrariness." [from a Canadian case]
Perhaps we could use this method to reduce legal costs by about 99%? He's a witch, burn him. OK, onto the pyre.
Not that I've a lot of sympathy for him, but this is getting silly.
Rennard wasn't found guilty under those rules, so why now suspend him anyway? Does seem to me like CD13 said, either you drown innocent, or you're a witch..
He should apply for an ex-parte injunction.
Lord R obviously think the long term benefits of having him onboard are bigger than the short term damage to the LDs and Clegg.
He may be right - but..
They're coming back around on a different charge.
The original judgment was that his actions caused distress and hence he should apologise, but since you couldn't prove intent beyond reasonable doubt he couldn't be found guilty.
The current charge is that by refusing to apologise, even an apology based on unintentionally causing distress, he is bringing the party into disrepute.
https://www.facebook.com/peter.hayes.3781/posts/10203078809316850
Betting PostBacked Ferrer to beat Berdych (2.46 on Betfair). He's got a 7:4 winning record, or 4:2 on hard courts. Not a dead cert, of course, but I would've put him odds on to win.
Surprisingly, I'm starting to feel sympathetic towards Rennard.
Unless I've misunderstood something, often happens
It is what the whole Lib Dem strategy was based around on this - Rennard playing ball. But he hasn't.
Which is a problem for Cleggers !
And I think it's fair to say the traditional residents of that area (as well as nearby Shoreditch and Hoxton) are being priced out of the area. It used to be full of recent Asian immigrants, and strange forbidding shops with signs in a language I was unable to read.
Now it's full of over-priced cocktail bars. And two bedroom flats that sell for £2.7m. (My landlord offered to sell me the six bedroom house my friends and I lived in for £550,000. It's fair to say that that would now cost £5.5m.)
The last few days I've seen a lot of 'Rennard this..', 'Rennard that', 'He said', 'She said..', 'S3xual harassment', 'Peer' and 'Liberal Democrat'. But that's basically alI I clocked from skimming the threads.
Quite frankly, it's a bit boring.
The inquiry found that the only aspect with insufficient evidence was whether he acted intentionally.
An apology was warranted even if he unintentionally caused distress.
Looks as though we’ve moved into the next phase of a battle of wills – Clegg says apologise, Rennard says no. – This is becoming rather damaging for all concerned; I’m sure others are wondering whose running the party as Clegg appears caught in the headlights of inaction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25804724
At the same time, I feel for Clegg. All he wants is a non-apology apology from Rennard:
"As the investigation clearly shows, I did nothing that was inappropriate or wrong. However, I may have inadvertently caused some people to feel discomfort - and for that I apologise."
On the one hand, he reads (and is told) that he's much more popular than his party and enjoys very strong levels of support from Conservative voters. At one point, it was nigh on 100%. On the other hand, his leadership has been characterised by the haemorrhaging of party members, activists and he is none too popular with plenty of his backbenchers either.
The simple conclusion is to say it's one or t'other and, naturally, you'd think the Cameroons would plump for the voters, thank you very much.
But the problem is that it's not that simple. A leader will always make enemies, and almost always progressively less popular as time goes by, but a good and perceptive leader would recognise that these choices are not mutually exclusive. The polite, patient and respective engagement of the party and its supporters - building support for each initiative, making the case and, most importantly, time for them - does not need to come at the cost of relative popularity amongst the voters at large.
It's called leadership, and good leaders don't dictate. They inspire and excite the building of a broad coalition to follow them.
There was no inquiry. The Investigator found there was insufficient evidence to warrant an inquiry as to whether Rennard had brought the party into disrepute.
And hence without intent a charge was unlikely to succeed.