1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
More were killed by the far right in that single attack in Norway than have been killed by the far right in the UK.
As I also pointed out in Sweden the far right Sweden Democrats have just got a higher voteshare than any right of the Tories party has ever got in the UK
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
More were killed in that single attack than have been killed by the far right in the UK
Think a bit more about what the far right includes, and you will realise how daft that is.
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
At a time of cost of living crisis?
It happened 12 years ago.
Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to make
I have no love of Rayner, nor left wingers in general but come on this is unwarranted. Many women feel less pretty after giving birth and have cosmetic surgery. Taxpayers didn't pay for it so frankly none of our business.
It made her feel better about herself something we should all support
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
At a time of cost of living crisis?
It happened 12 years ago.
Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to make
Perhaps, but I think most are just sick of the sight of Tories right now. Put a red rosette on a shop dummy and I think it will win in most places.
Indeed that may be the Labour strategy in many places.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
She can do no wrong from my point of view; at least she belongs to the human race and after the Sharon Stone episode she became more noticeable as being nicely flirty just by existing.
But I enjoyed this bit of the Sky piece:
"I had my boob job on my 30th birthday," she told the Financial Times.
as I recall the days when FT people would have no idea what a boob job was.
A story that gets people thinking about Rayner's tits sounds like smart politics.
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
She chose to tell us all about it in an interview though, its not an exposé. Why she thinks we should care that she borrrowed a lot of money for sheer vanity i'm not sure, its all a bit Hello magazine
I don’t get HYFUD posting it here as if she’s done something wrong. It was 12 years ago, so totally unrelated to CoL. I assume she’s paid the loan back by now.
Oh i agree, there is no story other than she is vain and wasted a load of money on having her boobs done. Like millions of other women, and increasingly, men. The vanity industry is a moneymaker
It doesn't matter what HYFUD or anyone else thinks; since the anon Tory compared her to Sharon Stone in the celebrated scene she can do no wrong in the eyes of all right thinking men.
Just by being there and doing nothing she is worth 3 million votes for Labour. Good.
I haven't been posting much recently mainly as I have been busy with DIY jobs and certainly not because I am disenchanted with PB which continues to be an excellent forum even if some members have been banned
However, just catching up I note @HYUFD is being embarrassing again
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
At a time of cost of living crisis?
It happened 12 years ago.
Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to make
Perhaps, but I think most are just sick of the sight of Tories right now. Put a red rosette on a shop dummy and I think it will win in most places.
Indeed that may be the Labour strategy in many places.
I suspect it will be a don’t scare the horses campaign.
It was ages ago and all. I mean, she mentioned it so its fine for an outlet to make a story, but there's no angle here.
I'm not sure this will be received too well. There will be those who'll react by thinking 'working class people are having to choose between heating and eating. Why is this? Oh they borrow thousands to get cosmetic surgery.'
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
More were killed by the far right in that single attack in Norway than have been killed by the far right in the UK.
As I also pointed out in Sweden the far right Sweden Democrats have just got a higher voteshare than any right of the Tories party has ever got in the UK
I repeat, one lunatic does not define the attitude of a country nor the success of its policies. That is like claiming that Harold Shipman is representative of the medical profession.
And again, Sweden is not Norway. You do realise that don't you? Or is geography as hazy as the rest of your knowledge? You might as well say that UK animal welfare policies are terrible because they kill dolphins in the Faroes.
She can do no wrong from my point of view; at least she belongs to the human race and after the Sharon Stone episode she became more noticeable as being nicely flirty just by existing.
But I enjoyed this bit of the Sky piece:
"I had my boob job on my 30th birthday," she told the Financial Times.
as I recall the days when FT people would have no idea what a boob job was.
A story that gets people thinking about Rayner's tits sounds like smart politics.
I think the anon Tory who started the Sharon Stone comparison lost the election for them single handed. It identified Boris and the Tories with powerlessness in the face of a woman being a woman, and identified Rayner with cinema royalty and completely proper, hilarious low cunning. A glorious moment.
Re: Nevada US Senate race, NYT now reporting that only county with less than 95% of expected vote already reported, is Washoe, which is at 87% and currently going for Cortez Masto 50% versus Laxalt 47%.
Not sure how much there is there in Clark (now Cortez Masto 52%, Laxalt 45%) but even a small percent could be a significant number in Silver State's biggest county.
Adam Laxalt Rep 468,437 48.50% Catherine Cortez Masto* Dem 467,575 48.41% None of these candidates 11,533 1.19% Barry Lindemann Ind 7,447 0.77% Neil Scott Lib 5,921 0.61% Barry Rubinson Ind Am 4,871 0.50% Total reported 965,784
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
.... as do the Republicans?
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
Trump and another Republican on the ballot? How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then? 470 more likely.
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.
The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
Are you advocating an election steal? That's a bit naughty and not at all democratic.
The Republicans have some very difficult decisions to make. I'm sure they would like Trump to just go away and be quiet, but that doesn't seem to be his style. They can't, I assume, stop him standing in Primaries and he could well win some of those, they may be stuck with him whatever they do. If they manage to get a different candidate, what is the betting that Trump won't stand as an Independent?
I think he’s done. He won’t run as an independent as his ego couldn’t deal with the almost certain defeat. Most likely to spoiler from the sidelines while grifting to the max, IMO.
What's his best way of hoovering up donations for the longest time which he can siphon off?
Remain a tease for the next twelve months, and then play the elder statesman, possibly. Alternatively fundraise for his defence funds for the upcoming criminal trials.
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
At a time of cost of living crisis?
It happened 12 years ago.
Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to make
No one cares. I can barely raise the give a fnck to reply to your comment.
She can do no wrong from my point of view; at least she belongs to the human race and after the Sharon Stone episode she became more noticeable as being nicely flirty just by existing.
But I enjoyed this bit of the Sky piece:
"I had my boob job on my 30th birthday," she told the Financial Times.
as I recall the days when FT people would have no idea what a boob job was.
A story that gets people thinking about Rayner's tits sounds like smart politics.
For Labour.
Why Tories would want to make them an issue, perhaps yet another sign of CUP political dementia?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
More were killed by the far right in that single attack in Norway than have been killed by the far right in the UK.
As I also pointed out in Sweden the far right Sweden Democrats have just got a higher voteshare than any right of the Tories party has ever got in the UK
I repeat, one lunatic does not define the attitude of a country nor the success of its policies. That is like claiming that Harold Shipman is representative of the medical profession.
And again, Sweden is not Norway. You do realise that don't you? Or is geography as hazy as the rest of your knowledge? You might as well say that UK animal welfare policies are terrible because they kill dolphins in the Faroes.
It is not just the far right committing terrorist attacks in Norway, an Islamist terrorist killed 2 in Norway's Pride this year too
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
.... as do the Republicans?
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
Trump and another Republican on the ballot? How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then? 470 more likely.
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.
The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
Are you advocating an election steal? That's a bit naughty and not at all democratic.
As 2020 showed the constitution allows the Congress to object to the EC results but there was no GOP majority to do so then, although a majority of GOP House representatives did vote to object to the EC results
Isn't the more accurate analogy the 1912 US election? As with all analogies, it doesn't stand up to close inspection but you have the ex-President challenging his party's candidate.
Biden will think all his Christmases have come early if Trump splits the GOP and storms off to run as an Independent against DeSantis - I think that prospect is more likely now than it was seven days ago.
To break my own analogy (as you have to sometimes) we drift towards 1992 with Trump a quasi-Perot figure. Let's say he polls 25%, DeSantis 30% and Biden 45% - that'll be a Biden landslide just as it was for Clinton in 1992 and for Wilson in 1912.
As we know over here, FPTP punishes parties which divide or split.
To get to that, we need to see if both Trump and DeSantis fetch up to Iowa next winter to contest the caucus and then the primaries. We've seen hard fought primaries between candidates of the same party (Reagan vs HW Bush, Obama vs Clinton) which have apparently torn parties in two but the party has recovered to win the election.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
As I also just pointed out Norway had an Islamist terrorist attack earlier this year at its Pride Festival. That follows on from 2011 when Norway had the worst single far right terrorist attack in post war Europe
Re: Nevada US Senate race, NYT now reporting that only county with less than 95% of expected vote already reported, is Washoe, which is at 87% and currently going for Cortez Masto 50% versus Laxalt 47%.
Not sure how much there is there in Clark (now Cortez Masto 52%, Laxalt 45%) but even a small percent could be a significant number in Silver State's biggest county.
Adam Laxalt Rep 468,437 48.50% Catherine Cortez Masto* Dem 467,575 48.41% None of these candidates 11,533 1.19% Barry Lindemann Ind 7,447 0.77% Neil Scott Lib 5,921 0.61% Barry Rubinson Ind Am 4,871 0.50% Total reported 965,784
'None of these candidates decisive once again', fantastic.
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
Isn't the more accurate analogy the 1912 US election? As with all analogies, it doesn't stand up to close inspection but you have the ex-President challenging his party's candidate.
Biden will think all his Christmases have come early if Trump splits the GOP and storms off to run as an Independent against DeSantis - I think that prospect is more likely now than it was seven days ago.
To break my own analogy (as you have to sometimes) we drift towards 1992 with Trump a quasi-Perot figure. Let's say he polls 25%, DeSantis 30% and Biden 45% - that'll be a Biden landslide just as it was for Clinton in 1992 and for Wilson in 1912.
As we know over here, FPTP punishes parties which divide or split.
To get to that, we need to see if both Trump and DeSantis fetch up to Iowa next winter to contest the caucus and then the primaries. We've seen hard fought primaries between candidates of the same party (Reagan vs HW Bush, Obama vs Clinton) which have apparently torn parties in two but the party has recovered to win the election.
Yes but HW endorsed Reagan and became his VP and Clinton endorsed Obama and became his Secretary of State, neither ran as Independents
Re: Nevada US Senate race, NYT now reporting that only county with less than 95% of expected vote already reported, is Washoe, which is at 87% and currently going for Cortez Masto 50% versus Laxalt 47%.
Not sure how much there is there in Clark (now Cortez Masto 52%, Laxalt 45%) but even a small percent could be a significant number in Silver State's biggest county.
Adam Laxalt Rep 468,437 48.50% Catherine Cortez Masto* Dem 467,575 48.41% None of these candidates 11,533 1.19% Barry Lindemann Ind 7,447 0.77% Neil Scott Lib 5,921 0.61% Barry Rubinson Ind Am 4,871 0.50% Total reported 965,784
Yesterday evening there was an official statement that 50,030 mail ballots from Clark County were still to be counted (not including 15,000 in "eligible cures and provisionals"). Since then 27,300 have been reported. So there should be another 22,700 or so to come.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
At a time of cost of living crisis?
It happened 12 years ago.
In the rubble of the GFC?
I don't think TSE is one of those who took the GFC that seriously.
Re: Nevada US Senate race, NYT now reporting that only county with less than 95% of expected vote already reported, is Washoe, which is at 87% and currently going for Cortez Masto 50% versus Laxalt 47%.
Not sure how much there is there in Clark (now Cortez Masto 52%, Laxalt 45%) but even a small percent could be a significant number in Silver State's biggest county.
Adam Laxalt Rep 468,437 48.50% Catherine Cortez Masto* Dem 467,575 48.41% None of these candidates 11,533 1.19% Barry Lindemann Ind 7,447 0.77% Neil Scott Lib 5,921 0.61% Barry Rubinson Ind Am 4,871 0.50% Total reported 965,784
'None of these candidates decisive once again', fantastic.
Only decisive IF they would otherwise have voted for a candidate on the ballot, instead of just skipping the race altogether. AND there was a skew one way or another to those who did vote, in lieu of marking "None".
Same argument re: votes cast for the three also-rans. Actually better IF you think that IF these 3 weren't on the ballot, their votes would more likely break (if they did at all) for Laxalt over Cortez Masto.
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
At a time of cost of living crisis?
It happened 12 years ago.
In the rubble of the GFC?
Maybe it caused it? It was, after all, Labours fault.*
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
At a time of cost of living crisis?
It happened 12 years ago.
In the rubble of the GFC?
Maybe it caused it? It was, after all, Labours fault.*
*According to Tories.
They had been in government for a decade. I suppose the 'global' part suggests it was hardly their fault entirely. But the reality is that the banking system nearly collapsed because it had virtually no capital. The government can't deny responsibility for that.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
Really interesting article in the Observer. (Ignore the headline). It isn't about that. Some possible meat on the bare bones of the financial statement to come.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
As I also just pointed out Norway had an Islamist terrorist attack earlier this year at its Pride Festival. That follows on from 2011 when Norway had the worst single far right terrorist attack in post war Europe
Two events in a decade. The first committed by a lunatic and the second by someone who had lived in the country for 30 years. You are getting desperate.
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
Jon Ralston says the Culinary Union has reported curing (should that be cooking?) 5,000 ballots, which he considers a BIG number, which will lean heavily to the Democrats.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
Re: Nevada US Senate race, NYT now reporting that only county with less than 95% of expected vote already reported, is Washoe, which is at 87% and currently going for Cortez Masto 50% versus Laxalt 47%.
Not sure how much there is there in Clark (now Cortez Masto 52%, Laxalt 45%) but even a small percent could be a significant number in Silver State's biggest county.
Adam Laxalt Rep 468,437 48.50% Catherine Cortez Masto* Dem 467,575 48.41% None of these candidates 11,533 1.19% Barry Lindemann Ind 7,447 0.77% Neil Scott Lib 5,921 0.61% Barry Rubinson Ind Am 4,871 0.50% Total reported 965,784
'None of these candidates decisive once again', fantastic.
Only decisive IF they would otherwise have voted for a candidate on the ballot, instead of just skipping the race altogether. AND there was a skew one way or another to those who did vote, in lieu of marking "None".
True, but I like to think given it is so close that it was indeed decisive, as that's much funnier.
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
It seems open to rampant abuse.
Actually rather regulated, mostly because it is election authorities who are judges of what and what does not comply with election law.
Plus high level of media AND opponent scrutiny, which is serious disincentive to getting too wild and crazy.
And keep in mind, you do NOT have any certainly of knowledge as to how any ballot is actually marked.
For example, you contact Mr John Q. Public, because he neglected to sign his return ballot envelope. He provides signature (on form with required oath) which is checked against the voter file - and does NOT match that sig.
OR let's say it does match, and the ballot is accepted and counted. BUT turns out that JQP did NOT vote for your candidate - something you will never know.
Anyway, only dumb campaigns take a meat-ax approach to signature chasing. Half the art is figuring out who NOT to chase at all.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
So what? You keep dragging up these irrelevancies. I would be disappointed if my daughter married a Muslim (by which I assume they mean a practicing Muslim) - just as I would if she married a practicing Christian or any other religion because I think grown adults shouldn't believe in medieval fairy tales. Disapproval of religion is not the same as disapproval of race or ethnicity. Nor disapproval of immigration.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
Really interesting article in the Observer. (Ignore the headline). It isn't about that. Some possible meat on the bare bones of the financial statement to come.
Kit Malthouse can't see where cuts to education come from. Me neither.
I understand how the rise in interest rates may have cost £10bn but how did the unfunded tax cuts to stamp duty and national insurance cost a further £20bn?
Isn't the more accurate analogy the 1912 US election? As with all analogies, it doesn't stand up to close inspection but you have the ex-President challenging his party's candidate.
Biden will think all his Christmases have come early if Trump splits the GOP and storms off to run as an Independent against DeSantis - I think that prospect is more likely now than it was seven days ago.
To break my own analogy (as you have to sometimes) we drift towards 1992 with Trump a quasi-Perot figure. Let's say he polls 25%, DeSantis 30% and Biden 45% - that'll be a Biden landslide just as it was for Clinton in 1992 and for Wilson in 1912.
As we know over here, FPTP punishes parties which divide or split.
To get to that, we need to see if both Trump and DeSantis fetch up to Iowa next winter to contest the caucus and then the primaries. We've seen hard fought primaries between candidates of the same party (Reagan vs HW Bush, Obama vs Clinton) which have apparently torn parties in two but the party has recovered to win the election.
Yes but HW endorsed Reagan and became his VP and Clinton endorsed Obama and became his Secretary of State, neither ran as Independents
Indeed and we can see parties unifying after seemingly divisive leadership battles - the Conservative Party is a fine example of that.
The question is whether, if he loses to DeSantis, whether you think Trump will offer his support and the support of his constituency to DeSantis or whether personal animosity or pride will force him to an independent run.
Trump is not a party man as you are or I was - he is his own man who arguably hijacked a party for his own ends. Do you think he is a Republican at heart? No, he's Trump at heart.
I struggle to think of an example of a former President who runs again, loses the nomination and then agrees to serve in the winner's Cabinet - Trump wouldn't do it - or do you think he would?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
So what? You keep dragging up these irrelevancies. I would be disappointed if my daughter married a Muslim (by which I assume they mean a practicing Muslim) - just as I would if she married a practicing Christian or any other religion because I think grown adults shouldn't believe in medieval fairy tales. Disapproval of religion is not the same as disapproval of race or ethnicity. Nor disapproval of immigration.
Oh it largely is given in the same poll just 6% of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Christian
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
It seems open to rampant abuse.
How so?
It seems that this is a cumbersome - but necessary - way to validate mail in ballots. You compare the signature to that which is on-file, and if there's a mismatch you get people to come in with photo ID and to confirm (and update) the signature on record.
It also means that if you are Joe Schmo and didn't vote, and receive a message about your signature not matching, then by reporting this, fraud is able to be identified.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
So what? You keep dragging up these irrelevancies. I would be disappointed if my daughter married a Muslim (by which I assume they mean a practicing Muslim) - just as I would if she married a practicing Christian or any other religion because I think grown adults shouldn't believe in medieval fairy tales. Disapproval of religion is not the same as disapproval of race or ethnicity. Nor disapproval of immigration.
Oh it largely is given in the same poll just 6% of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Christian
Isn't this just because Christianity, at this moment in history, is far more moderate than Islam? I would disapprove if my daughter married a practicing Orthodox Jew but be very comfortable with her marrying a liberal Jew. Given most Jews are pretty moderate, without specifying in the country I would assume the hypothetical one in the question would be moderate.
I was able to confirm today that Rachel Dyldo definitely isn't Rachel Dyldo. I had a letter for from HMRC with her real name. I looked her up on facebook and we several mutual friends
Today, she upped her game. When I was walking back up the other side of the loop, I saw an Amazon driver delivering something to the house. I asked him "Mrs Dyldo?", he replied "Fanny Dyldo"
The next house I got to I had a parcel for what definitely looked like Roger Bum. I was a bit disappointed to see I had a letter for him as well - as Roger Burn. Probably a smudge, but he might be on team Dyldo and order parcels as Bum! And even Roger Burn is a potentially saucy name: I've got a roger burn.. how long did he go for?
I very nearly had an extremely embarrassing moment yesterday. I often talk to myself out loud at work, though only when I think I'm out of earshot of other people. And I quite often talk to the animals I meet
Yesterday, for the first time, I saw a big black cockerel on my way out of one of the gardens. I was just about to say out loud to myself and to the big black cockerel, "Ooh! A big black cockerel"
I'd opened my mouth to say it; I had my mouth in ooh mode. Then I caught movement in the corner of my peripheral vision. I couldn't talk to myself in front of another person. So I stopped and looked around
It was a very big, very black, UPS driver
Imagine if I'd not seen him and had been saying "Ooh! A big black cock...erel"
I have no idea what face I was pulling as I said Hi to him, while so relieved to have avoided that terribly comedic moment, but also writhing in potential embarrassment at it. I don't ever want to see that face
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
She can do no wrong from my point of view; at least she belongs to the human race and after the Sharon Stone episode she became more noticeable as being nicely flirty just by existing.
But I enjoyed this bit of the Sky piece:
"I had my boob job on my 30th birthday," she told the Financial Times.
as I recall the days when FT people would have no idea what a boob job was.
A story that gets people thinking about Rayner's tits sounds like smart politics.
For Labour.
Why Tories would want to make them an issue, perhaps yet another sign of CUP political dementia?
Yes, that's what I meant. It is Rayner herself who has put the story out there.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Isn't the more accurate analogy the 1912 US election? As with all analogies, it doesn't stand up to close inspection but you have the ex-President challenging his party's candidate.
Biden will think all his Christmases have come early if Trump splits the GOP and storms off to run as an Independent against DeSantis - I think that prospect is more likely now than it was seven days ago.
To break my own analogy (as you have to sometimes) we drift towards 1992 with Trump a quasi-Perot figure. Let's say he polls 25%, DeSantis 30% and Biden 45% - that'll be a Biden landslide just as it was for Clinton in 1992 and for Wilson in 1912.
As we know over here, FPTP punishes parties which divide or split.
To get to that, we need to see if both Trump and DeSantis fetch up to Iowa next winter to contest the caucus and then the primaries. We've seen hard fought primaries between candidates of the same party (Reagan vs HW Bush, Obama vs Clinton) which have apparently torn parties in two but the party has recovered to win the election.
Yes but HW endorsed Reagan and became his VP and Clinton endorsed Obama and became his Secretary of State, neither ran as Independents
Indeed and we can see parties unifying after seemingly divisive leadership battles - the Conservative Party is a fine example of that.
The question is whether, if he loses to DeSantis, whether you think Trump will offer his support and the support of his constituency to DeSantis or whether personal animosity or pride will force him to an independent run.
Trump is not a party man as you are or I was - he is his own man who arguably hijacked a party for his own ends. Do you think he is a Republican at heart? No, he's Trump at heart.
I struggle to think of an example of a former President who runs again, loses the nomination and then agrees to serve in the winner's Cabinet - Trump wouldn't do it - or do you think he would?
I agree, Trump is far more likely to run as an Independent than serve in a De Santis cabinet
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
Jon Ralston says the Culinary Union has reported curing (should that be cooking?) 5,000 ballots, which he considers a BIG number, which will lean heavily to the Democrats.
It seems that stringing it out as long as possible is part of the way you show your love for democracy in the USA.
They really should come over here and take note of how a country only 1/5th the size in population manages to turn it all around in 10 hours whenever it has to.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever had in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Very few places serve whale at all now. And I refused to eat it at one corporate dinner we went to as a matter of principle. Pointless of course as the poor bloody thing was already dead but I just couldn't do it.
Weren't Sunak's planned corporation tax rises supposed to be worth £16bn. And what about the NI rise? Get rid of the absurd referendum required if councils want to raise council tax. Start getting people over retirement age to pay NI if they stay in work. That's 1.5m people. If you earn £50,000 you are near the top 10% of earners. If you are 68 and on that salary in England, your take home pay is £42500. Is this really sustainable?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
So what? You keep dragging up these irrelevancies. I would be disappointed if my daughter married a Muslim (by which I assume they mean a practicing Muslim) - just as I would if she married a practicing Christian or any other religion because I think grown adults shouldn't believe in medieval fairy tales. Disapproval of religion is not the same as disapproval of race or ethnicity. Nor disapproval of immigration.
Liked, but want to post that I liked cos I really liked. Excellent post.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Wait: so the major determination of whether a country is a success or not is the skin colour and religion of their Prime Minister?
She can do no wrong from my point of view; at least she belongs to the human race and after the Sharon Stone episode she became more noticeable as being nicely flirty just by existing.
But I enjoyed this bit of the Sky piece:
"I had my boob job on my 30th birthday," she told the Financial Times.
as I recall the days when FT people would have no idea what a boob job was.
A story that gets people thinking about Rayner's tits sounds like smart politics.
For Labour.
Why Tories would want to make them an issue, perhaps yet another sign of CUP political dementia?
Yes, that's what I meant. It is Rayner herself who has put the story out there.
That's NOT what I meant
Or rather, think that Rayner mentioning her boob job is NOT a political demerit in the slightest.
What IS dumb, is for Tories to start bringing it up, in tones of ersatz outrage.
Angela's self-"expose" shows that top Labourite is a regular person who is with it (if the kids are still saying that!) but not pushing the envelope.
Any tabloid appeal to demographics NOT tuned into PB & etc. being a PLUS.
Opposite is true of Conservative efforts to turn this into The Scarlet Letter.
Unless they think old, dumb, misogynist AND hypocritical is a good look?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Wait: so the major determination of whether a country is a success or not is the skin colour and religion of their Prime Minister?
It is one factor, only the UK and US of white majority nations have so far elected a non white PM or President.
Plus all the other factors I mentioned eg tolerance of intermarriage between races and cultures from the native population and immigrants
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
Jon Ralston says the Culinary Union has reported curing (should that be cooking?) 5,000 ballots, which he considers a BIG number, which will lean heavily to the Democrats.
Shouldn’t we take curing reports with a large pinch of salt ?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Nope. Those attacks were not spawned by the integrationist policy and you just make yourself look very stupid for trying to claim it.
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
Jon Ralston says the Culinary Union has reported curing (should that be cooking?) 5,000 ballots, which he considers a BIG number, which will lean heavily to the Democrats.
Shouldn’t we take curing reports with a large pinch of salt ?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Very few places serve whale at all now. And I refused to eat it at one corporate dinner we went to as a matter of principle. Pointless of course as the poor bloody thing was already dead but I just couldn't do it.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
How many generations does it require, to have a hankering for lutefisk?
Once had an old Norski (by way of Idaho) tell me the traditional recipe: > take a codfish > hang on side of barn with dogs pissing on it spring, summer & fall > remove, smother with butter and serve
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
Jon Ralston says the Culinary Union has reported curing (should that be cooking?) 5,000 ballots, which he considers a BIG number, which will lean heavily to the Democrats.
Shouldn’t we take curing reports with a large pinch of salt ?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
How many generations does it require, to have a hankering for lutefisk?
Once had an old Norski (by way of Idaho) tell me the traditional recipe: > take a codfish > hang on side of barn with dogs pissing on it spring, summer & fall > remove, smother with butter and serve
It is certainly an acquired taste. But one they insist on serving at least once a week in most office and rig canteens. The modern way is to put it in a plastic tub and cover it is caustic soda for a few days. It is no improvement.
She can do no wrong from my point of view; at least she belongs to the human race and after the Sharon Stone episode she became more noticeable as being nicely flirty just by existing.
But I enjoyed this bit of the Sky piece:
"I had my boob job on my 30th birthday," she told the Financial Times.
as I recall the days when FT people would have no idea what a boob job was.
A story that gets people thinking about Rayner's tits sounds like smart politics.
For Labour.
Why Tories would want to make them an issue, perhaps yet another sign of CUP political dementia?
Yes, that's what I meant. It is Rayner herself who has put the story out there.
That's NOT what I meant
Or rather, think that Rayner mentioning her boob job is NOT a political demerit in the slightest.
What IS dumb, is for Tories to start bringing it up, in tones of ersatz outrage.
Angela's self-"expose" shows that top Labourite is a regular person who is with it (if the kids are still saying that!) but not pushing the envelope.
Any tabloid appeal to demographics NOT tuned into PB & etc. being a PLUS.
Opposite is true of Conservative efforts to turn this into The Scarlet Letter.
Unless they think old, dumb, misogynist AND hypocritical is a good look?
If Angela Rayner had a boob job, I don't know what the issue it.
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
Jon Ralston says the Culinary Union has reported curing (should that be cooking?) 5,000 ballots, which he considers a BIG number, which will lean heavily to the Democrats.
Shouldn’t we take curing reports with a large pinch of salt ?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
Actually, they probably do come for the culture. And also the cuisine is far superior. And these days, they might even come for the climate
Republicans take the House I make £35 profit overall now.
If they do not, I'm going to the poor house - and I'm not sure that's a metaphor this time.
The Republicans will take the House, that's not in doubt.
The argument upthread that New York Democrats cost the party the House is probably true, but also without merit. Gerrymandering is cheating, and both parties are equally guilty of it. The NY Democrats tried to cheat so blatantly, that their map got struck down. To say that if they'd cheated with a bit more subtlety, they'd have succeeded may be true, but it's a good thing that they failed.
The Republicans will probably win the popular vote by 2% or so. One can't say it's an injustice if they win the House.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Nope. Those attacks were not spawned by the integrationist policy and you just make yourself look very stupid for trying to claim it.
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
Number of hate crimes in Norway doubled recently so suggests prior under reporting
Comments
As I also pointed out in Sweden the far right Sweden Democrats have just got a higher voteshare than any right of the Tories party has ever got in the UK
It made her feel better about herself something we should all support
Just by being there and doing nothing she is worth 3 million votes for Labour. Good.
I haven't been posting much recently mainly as I have been busy with DIY jobs and certainly not because I am disenchanted with PB which continues to be an excellent forum even if some members have been banned
However, just catching up I note @HYUFD is being embarrassing again
It is true with PB that somethings never change
And again, Sweden is not Norway. You do realise that don't you? Or is geography as hazy as the rest of your knowledge? You might as well say that UK animal welfare policies are terrible because they kill dolphins in the Faroes.
Then there are at least 7000 more clark ballots with potentially another 8000 depending on hoe curing goes over the next 2 days.
Not sure how much there is there in Clark (now Cortez Masto 52%, Laxalt 45%) but even a small percent could be a significant number in Silver State's biggest county.
Adam Laxalt Rep 468,437 48.50%
Catherine Cortez Masto* Dem 467,575 48.41%
None of these candidates 11,533 1.19%
Barry Lindemann Ind 7,447 0.77%
Neil Scott Lib 5,921 0.61%
Barry Rubinson Ind Am 4,871 0.50%
Total reported 965,784
Alternatively fundraise for his defence funds for the upcoming criminal trials.
I can barely raise the give a fnck to reply to your comment.
Why Tories would want to make them an issue, perhaps yet another sign of CUP political dementia?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61933817
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
Isn't the more accurate analogy the 1912 US election? As with all analogies, it doesn't stand up to close inspection but you have the ex-President challenging his party's candidate.
Biden will think all his Christmases have come early if Trump splits the GOP and storms off to run as an Independent against DeSantis - I think that prospect is more likely now than it was seven days ago.
To break my own analogy (as you have to sometimes) we drift towards 1992 with Trump a quasi-Perot figure. Let's say he polls 25%, DeSantis 30% and Biden 45% - that'll be a Biden landslide just as it was for Clinton in 1992 and for Wilson in 1912.
As we know over here, FPTP punishes parties which divide or split.
To get to that, we need to see if both Trump and DeSantis fetch up to Iowa next winter to contest the caucus and then the primaries. We've seen hard fought primaries between candidates of the same party (Reagan vs HW Bush, Obama vs Clinton) which have apparently torn parties in two but the party has recovered to win the election.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
Same argument re: votes cast for the three also-rans. Actually better IF you think that IF these 3 weren't on the ballot, their votes would more likely break (if they did at all) for Laxalt over Cortez Masto.
*According to Tories.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
Some possible meat on the bare bones of the financial statement to come.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/12/revealed-the-30bn-cost-of-liz-trusss-disastrous-mini-budget
Kit Malthouse can't see where cuts to education come from.
Me neither.
https://sputniknews.com/20150530/1022753409.html
I have just discovered that the mascot of the German basketball team Chemnitz 99ers is…Karl Marx
https://twitter.com/hering_david/status/1591167872537006080
F**k that’s a downer of a movie, although think @leon would appreciate the (obvious) twist
Plus high level of media AND opponent scrutiny, which is serious disincentive to getting too wild and crazy.
And keep in mind, you do NOT have any certainly of knowledge as to how any ballot is actually marked.
For example, you contact Mr John Q. Public, because he neglected to sign his return ballot envelope. He provides signature (on form with required oath) which is checked against the voter file - and does NOT match that sig.
OR let's say it does match, and the ballot is accepted and counted. BUT turns out that JQP did NOT vote for your candidate - something you will never know.
Anyway, only dumb campaigns take a meat-ax approach to signature chasing. Half the art is figuring out who NOT to chase at all.
https://www.imdi.no/en/
I heartily approve.
The question is whether, if he loses to DeSantis, whether you think Trump will offer his support and the support of his constituency to DeSantis or whether personal animosity or pride will force him to an independent run.
Trump is not a party man as you are or I was - he is his own man who arguably hijacked a party for his own ends. Do you think he is a Republican at heart? No, he's Trump at heart.
I struggle to think of an example of a former President who runs again, loses the nomination and then agrees to serve in the winner's Cabinet - Trump wouldn't do it - or do you think he would?
Another £300, Republicans take it, I make a profit.
Tempting. Also a bit reckless.
It seems that this is a cumbersome - but necessary - way to validate mail in ballots. You compare the signature to that which is on-file, and if there's a mismatch you get people to come in with photo ID and to confirm (and update) the signature on record.
It also means that if you are Joe Schmo and didn't vote, and receive a message about your signature not matching, then by reporting this, fraud is able to be identified.
Today, she upped her game. When I was walking back up the other side of the loop, I saw an Amazon driver delivering something to the house. I asked him "Mrs Dyldo?", he replied "Fanny Dyldo"
The next house I got to I had a parcel for what definitely looked like Roger Bum. I was a bit disappointed to see I had a letter for him as well - as Roger Burn. Probably a smudge, but he might be on team Dyldo and order parcels as Bum! And even Roger Burn is a potentially saucy name: I've got a roger burn.. how long did he go for?
I very nearly had an extremely embarrassing moment yesterday. I often talk to myself out loud at work, though only when I think I'm out of earshot of other people. And I quite often talk to the animals I meet
Yesterday, for the first time, I saw a big black cockerel on my way out of one of the gardens. I was just about to say out loud to myself and to the big black cockerel, "Ooh! A big black cockerel"
I'd opened my mouth to say it; I had my mouth in ooh mode. Then I caught movement in the corner of my peripheral vision. I couldn't talk to myself in front of another person. So I stopped and looked around
It was a very big, very black, UPS driver
Imagine if I'd not seen him and had been saying "Ooh! A big black cock...erel"
I have no idea what face I was pulling as I said Hi to him, while so relieved to have avoided that terribly comedic moment, but also writhing in potential embarrassment at it. I don't ever want to see that face
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutefisk
They really should come over here and take note of how a country only 1/5th the size in population manages to turn it all around in 10 hours whenever it has to.
Wait: so the major determination of whether a country is a success or not is the skin colour and religion of their Prime Minister?
Or rather, think that Rayner mentioning her boob job is NOT a political demerit in the slightest.
What IS dumb, is for Tories to start bringing it up, in tones of ersatz outrage.
Angela's self-"expose" shows that top Labourite is a regular person who is with it (if the kids are still saying that!) but not pushing the envelope.
Any tabloid appeal to demographics NOT tuned into PB & etc. being a PLUS.
Opposite is true of Conservative efforts to turn this into The Scarlet Letter.
Unless they think old, dumb, misogynist AND hypocritical is a good look?
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
https://sputniknews.com/20150530/1022753409.html
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
https://www.imdi.no/en/
I heartily approve.
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Wait: so the major determination of whether a country is a success or not is the skin colour and religion of their Prime Minister?
It is one factor, only the UK and US of white majority nations have so far elected a non white PM or President.
Plus all the other factors I mentioned eg tolerance of intermarriage between races and cultures from the native population and immigrants
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Octopus_Teacher
Despite thoroughly enjoying Oldboy.
Once had an old Norski (by way of Idaho) tell me the traditional recipe:
> take a codfish
> hang on side of barn with dogs pissing on it spring, summer & fall
> remove, smother with butter and serve
@HYUFD is having one of his many bad nights on here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru
Republicans take the House I make £35 profit overall now.
If they do not, I'm going to the poor house - and I'm not sure that's a metaphor this time.
Nathaniel Rateliff & The Night Sweats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KUV2TFTpGo
It's really good
The argument upthread that New York Democrats cost the party the House is probably true, but also without merit. Gerrymandering is cheating, and both parties are equally guilty of it. The NY Democrats tried to cheat so blatantly, that their map got struck down. To say that if they'd cheated with a bit more subtlety, they'd have succeeded may be true, but it's a good thing that they failed.
The Republicans will probably win the popular vote by 2% or so. One can't say it's an injustice if they win the House.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1180606/number-of-reported-hate-crimes-in-norway/