politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Euro election competition winner
Congratulations to Wulfrun_Phil to winning the competition, thanks to everyone who took part, and a big thank you to Mark Hopkins to setting up the website for the entries.
During the day I got an unsolicited phone call from some gormless wage-slave trying to sell something. Usually I just say things like "globule" or "vestibule" to such people until they get fed up and cut me off, but by chance I happened to have readily at hand the transcript of the "Black!" sketch from the latest episode of the Fast Show, so I was able to say to the person this:
"Black! Black in the mouth... Black! Like Inky the octopus that comes lolloping along... Mr Pinky hits his hammer. Hit! Hit! Hit! How far in the trunk, mummy? How far in the trunk? Glenda knows, Glenda knows! Equestrian cement! Equestrian cement! Underarm... You're in my telescope..."
In between the words, I could hear the man saying "sorry?" and "hello?" a few times. I managed to finish almost all of the entire script before he cut me off.
It made me feel a whole lot better after being grumpy and annoyed for the last week after the voters of Croydon had not only the stupidity to vote Labour in their own safe wards, but also the impertinence to impose a Labour council on the rest of us.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
Re: burqas, it's worth remembering that the religious underpinning for them is minimal at best. They were and are an explicitly *political* rejection of Western values.
The common usage dates back to Egypt in the late 19th century during the period of British "oversight". At the time they were mainly confirmed to a small group of desert tribes. The British soldiers had standing orders to remove the face covering from anyone wearing a burqa on the grounds that it was illiberal and oppressive to women. The result: they were adopted as a nationalist symbol that rejected British rule and Western values.
Upshot is that this isn't a question of liberal or illiberal. This is an attack on our basic values of everyone being able to participate in society on an equal footing. Don't want to ban them: fine. But make it a policy that to interact with public services you can't wear a burqa & create a safe harbour so any private company doesn't have to serve someone wearing a burqa if they don't want to.
Alex Salmond’s claim that Scotland is one of the richest countries in the developed world has been challenged in a study by Glasgow University academics which finds it is a middle-ranking economy with high levels of foreign ownership.
A couple of points on the new YG poll now that the tables are up. Obviously it does look like an outlier. However there are a couple of things that explain this.
1. The men / women numbers show the Conservatives on 31/32 and Labour on 37/38. There is obviously a potential rounding issue here. If the poll gave a 37.6-31.4 split then it was effectively a 5 point lead, not 7, which would be quite similar to the previous days.
2. There is a particularly large number of LD to Lab switchers. LD 2010 voters split Lab 38 LD 24, Con 14, UKIP 11 and Green 10. Also a relatively high number of Con to UKIP switcher (19%) and Lab to UKIP switchers (9%), although not a dramatic rise.
Therefore there may be the potential for Labour to sustain a small lead in the short term if the LD chaos has pushed more switchers to Labour. However, as it dies down you would expect these to return to normal and the Labour position to fall back.
It does seem to reaffirm though the view that the GE will be decided by the level of LD to Labour and Con to UKIP switching.
Perfectly timed for a YouGov Labour lead of 7......
That said, the Tory message did seem much more focussed this time.
The polls bounce up and down all the time. Message discipline and organisational strength will go a long way towards affecting the final shape of the polls.
Well I certainly expect it to unwind compared to that YG poll!
The question is how much unwind will happen? Personally I expect more unwind of the Con to UKIP switching than the LD to Lab switching. As the election becomes more of a contest between Labour and Conservative UKIP switchers will be pushed back whereas LD voters (certainly in the Lab / Con marginals) will be pushed to stay.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
Re: burqas, it's worth remembering that the religious underpinning for them is minimal at best. They were and are an explicitly *political* rejection of Western values.
The common usage dates back to Egypt in the late 19th century during the period of British "oversight". At the time they were mainly confirmed to a small group of desert tribes. The British soldiers had standing orders to remove the face covering from anyone wearing a burqa on the grounds that it was illiberal and oppressive to women. The result: they were adopted as a nationalist symbol that rejected British rule and Western values.
Upshot is that this isn't a question of liberal or illiberal. This is an attack on our basic values of everyone being able to participate in society on an equal footing. Don't want to ban them: fine. But make it a policy that to interact with public services you can't wear a burqa & create a safe harbour so any private company doesn't have to serve someone wearing a burqa if they don't want to.
Well, if you want to encourage Islamic radicals including terrorists that's a good way to go.
It's perhaps worth pondering that the key Western "value" which burqa-wearers "reject" is the preference for reason over tradition. I - and a few other older Peebies quite possibly including OGH - will remember (just) grandmothers who, whilst they didn't wear burqas, certainly organised their lives around their own cultural traditions and saw education as destructive of family values. It's only been fifty years or so since respectable Englishwomen left their homes bareheaded, after all.
I do not want to see Burquas banned (actually rare in UK, It is the Niqab that is more common)
Though in the clash between protection of cultural rights and womens rights I stand clearly on the side of women.
I think that certain civics teaching should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, in all schools including private ones, including equal rights for women and democratic values.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
Re: burqas, it's worth remembering that the religious underpinning for them is minimal at best. They were and are an explicitly *political* rejection of Western values.
The common usage dates back to Egypt in the late 19th century during the period of British "oversight". At the time they were mainly confirmed to a small group of desert tribes. The British soldiers had standing orders to remove the face covering from anyone wearing a burqa on the grounds that it was illiberal and oppressive to women. The result: they were adopted as a nationalist symbol that rejected British rule and Western values.
Upshot is that this isn't a question of liberal or illiberal. This is an attack on our basic values of everyone being able to participate in society on an equal footing. Don't want to ban them: fine. But make it a policy that to interact with public services you can't wear a burqa & create a safe harbour so any private company doesn't have to serve someone wearing a burqa if they don't want to.
Well, if you want to encourage Islamic radicals including terrorists that's a good way to go.
It's perhaps worth pondering that the key Western "value" which burqa-wearers "reject" is the preference for reason over tradition. I - and a few other older Peebies quite possibly including OGH - will remember (just) grandmothers who, whilst they didn't wear burqas, certainly organised their lives around their own cultural traditions and saw education as destructive of family values. It's only been fifty years or so since respectable Englishwomen left their homes bareheaded, after all.
He's tried before to win by avoiding the herd view and slipping through to win a surprise victory from a generally discounted result.
He's done another (Proper) entry as Nick Palmer
38.88 was obviously an error.
I see.
How many entries did he have? :
N. Palmer .. Nick Palmer .. Nick P .. Nicholas Palmer .. Nick Palmer EXMP .. N Palmer EXMP .. Peoples Judean Front for Nick Palmer .. Nick Palmer - Broxtowe's Choice.
Con gratulations to Wulfren Phil, and Shadsy is a hard man to take money off!
Overall I came out £20 up, at least I got turnout right.
Mid-table mediocrity for me. Very Spurs. But I take consolation in everyone I beat, while bitterly regretting my failure to be more precise. Note to self: next time no rounding, do it to the second decimal point.
Con gratulations to Wulfren Phil, and Shadsy is a hard man to take money off!
Overall I came out £20 up, at least I got turnout right.
Mid-table mediocrity for me. Very Spurs. But I take consolation in everyone I beat, while bitterly regretting my failure to be more precise. Note to self: next time no rounding, do it to the second decimal point.
Spurs should have made you sixth taking Chris K's place, whereas your position in reality made you which football team ??
2. There is a particularly large number of LD to Lab switchers. LD 2010 voters split Lab 38 LD 24, Con 14, UKIP 11 and Green 10.
I doubt that the current Lib Dem "chaos" has been particularly noticed by the wider public, beyond the general fact that they came out of the European and local elections as a bunch of losers. However, this impression of being a bunch of losers is potentially very dangerous for the "winning here" Lib Dems.
Some voters may decide that the Lib Dems are not best placed to defeat the Tories, even in seats that the Lib Dems currently hold, because they see the way in which the Lib Dem vote is dissipating. It matters not whether these voters are wrong, but if the impression is created then it becomes self-fulfilling.
In FPTP victory is sometimes a matter of confidence in the way in which other voters will vote, rather than being a simple reflection of political opinion. This confidence can act either to dampen or amplify the underlying changes in political opinion.
Almost as much as anything else the Lib Dems fortunes rely on how well people think they will do.
2. There is a particularly large number of LD to Lab switchers. LD 2010 voters split Lab 38 LD 24, Con 14, UKIP 11 and Green 10.
I doubt that the current Lib Dem "chaos" has been particularly noticed by the wider public, beyond the general fact that they came out of the European and local elections as a bunch of losers. However, this impression of being a bunch of losers is potentially very dangerous for the "winning here" Lib Dems.
Some voters may decide that the Lib Dems are not best placed to defeat the Tories, even in seats that the Lib Dems currently hold, because they see the way in which the Lib Dem vote is dissipating. It matters not whether these voters are wrong, but if the impression is created then it becomes self-fulfilling.
In FPTP victory is sometimes a matter of confidence in the way in which other voters will vote, rather than being a simple reflection of political opinion. This confidence can act either to dampen or amplify the underlying changes in political opinion.
Almost as much as anything else the Lib Dems fortunes rely on how well people think they will do.
The Lib Dems did worse than I was expecting in seats, but not in votes - Labour's surge in London cost them any chance of that seat.
But only 5% of the population thought the Lib Dems did better than expected according to YouGov.
And 63% thought UKIP did better than they expected.
As you say not everyone was expecting the UKIP win even almost everyone here had it priced as odds on.
I do not want to see Burquas banned (actually rare in UK, It is the Niqab that is more common)
Though in the clash between protection of cultural rights and womens rights I stand clearly on the side of women.
I think that certain civics teaching should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, in all schools including private ones, including equal rights for women and democratic values.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
Re: burqas, it's worth remembering that the religious underpinning for them is minimal at best. They were and are an explicitly *political* rejection of Western values.
The common usage dates back to Egypt in the late 19th century during the period of British "oversight". At the time they were mainly confirmed to a small group of desert tribes. The British soldiers had standing orders to remove the face covering from anyone wearing a burqa on the grounds that it was illiberal and oppressive to women. The result: they were adopted as a nationalist symbol that rejected British rule and Western values.
Upshot is that this isn't a question of liberal or illiberal. This is an attack on our basic values of everyone being able to participate in society on an equal footing. Don't want to ban them: fine. But make it a policy that to interact with public services you can't wear a burqa & create a safe harbour so any private company doesn't have to serve someone wearing a burqa if they don't want to.
Well, if you want to encourage Islamic radicals including terrorists that's a good way to go.
It's perhaps worth pondering that the key Western "value" which burqa-wearers "reject" is the preference for reason over tradition. I - and a few other older Peebies quite possibly including OGH - will remember (just) grandmothers who, whilst they didn't wear burqas, certainly organised their lives around their own cultural traditions and saw education as destructive of family values. It's only been fifty years or so since respectable Englishwomen left their homes bareheaded, after all.
I hate the burqa, but I am very suspicious of a lot of those calling for it to be banned in the name of women's rights. What do they mean by this? What is a woman's right and what isn't? Does affordable child care count, or being able to take maternity leave without fear of losing your job, or being able to heat your home without having to skimp on other basics, or being able to stay on at school, or go to university, or get a job, or equal pay, or what?
I was astonished to read Hodges' view that this was a disaster for Ed Miliband.
To be honest that wasn't what interested me. It was more the assessment of the other campaigns. I also think there is a danger that people dismiss Hodges because he says things people don't want to hear.
During the day I got an unsolicited phone call from some gormless wage-slave trying to sell something. Usually I just say things like "globule" or "vestibule" to such people until they get fed up and cut me off, but by chance I happened to have readily at hand the transcript of the "Black!" sketch from the latest episode of the Fast Show, so I was able to say to the person this:
"Black! Black in the mouth... Black! Like Inky the octopus that comes lolloping along... Mr Pinky hits his hammer. Hit! Hit! Hit! How far in the trunk, mummy? How far in the trunk? Glenda knows, Glenda knows! Equestrian cement! Equestrian cement! Underarm... You're in my telescope..."
In between the words, I could hear the man saying "sorry?" and "hello?" a few times. I managed to finish almost all of the entire script before he cut me off.
It made me feel a whole lot better after being grumpy and annoyed for the last week after the voters of Croydon had not only the stupidity to vote Labour in their own safe wards, but also the impertinence to impose a Labour council on the rest of us.
That is simply tremendous Mr Loony - I have printed off a copy of your wonderful prose and it now sits beside the phone awaiting a recital by yours truly. I can barely wait, the excitement is such!
I was astonished to read Hodges' view that this was a disaster for Ed Miliband.
To be honest that wasn't what interested me. It was more the assessment of the other campaigns. I also think there is a danger that people dismiss Hodges because he says things people don't want to hear.
Hodges may turn out to be right about the GE result. What makes him less than a serious commentator is his inability to write about anything except how crap Ed is and to see everything that happens as being bad for Ed. Compare and contrast with a much more thoughtful critic of the Labour leadership, such as Hopi Sen.
I do not want to see Burquas banned (actually rare in UK, It is the Niqab that is more common)
Though in the clash between protection of cultural rights and womens rights I stand clearly on the side of women.
I think that certain civics teaching should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, in all schools including private ones, including equal rights for women and democratic values.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
I hate the burqa, but I am very suspicious of a lot of those calling for it to be banned in the name of women's rights. What do they mean by this? What is a woman's right and what isn't? Does affordable child care count, or being able to take maternity leave without fear of losing your job, or being able to heat your home without having to skimp on other basics, or being able to stay on at school, or go to university, or get a job, or equal pay, or what?
It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
What this means in terms of the burqa is that I do not want to ban it (which is deeply unBritish) but I want to encourage a mindset amongst the communities that wear it that reflects our values of female equality and independence. Wishing for something does not make it happen of course and the way to encourage this is not obvious.
What I think is clear is that education should play an important part. I was concerned to see in the video from the Birmingham school that there was obvious sex segregation. Of course we still have all girls schools which tend to be amongst our best performers but I think this is something that should not be encouraged in state schools, particularly when seeking to address cultures which treat women as second class.
I do not want to see Burquas banned (actually rare in UK, It is the Niqab that is more common)
Though in the clash between protection of cultural rights and womens rights I stand clearly on the side of women.
I think that certain civics teaching should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, in all schools including private ones, including equal rights for women and democratic values.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
Re: burqas, it's worth remembering that the religious underpinning for them is minimal at best. They were and are an explicitly *political* rejection of Western values.
The common usage dates back to Egypt in the late 19th century during the period of British "oversight". At the time they were mainly confirmed to a small group of desert tribes. The British soldiers had standing orders to remove the face covering from anyone wearing a burqa on the grounds that it was illiberal and oppressive to women. The result: they were adopted as a nationalist symbol that rejected British rule and Western values.
Upshot is that this isn't a question of liberal or illiberal. This is an attack on our basic values of everyone being able to participate in society on an equal footing. Don't want to ban them: fine. But make it a policy that to interact with public services you can't wear a burqa & create a safe harbour so any private company doesn't have to serve someone wearing a burqa if they don't want to.
Well, if you want to encourage Islamic radicals including terrorists that's a good way to go.
It's perhaps worth pondering that the key Western "value" which burqa-wearers "reject" is the preference for reason over tradition. I - and a few other older Peebies quite possibly including OGH - will remember (just) grandmothers who, whilst they didn't wear burqas, certainly organised their lives around their own cultural traditions and saw education as destructive of family values. It's only been fifty years or so since respectable Englishwomen left their homes bareheaded, after all.
Well, I don't know which of the things I enjoy are rights and which are privileges (I suspect my occupational and State pensions are in the latter category, if I take the broad and wide view). In other words, need does not imply right - at least if capitalism is to work.
Wulfrun_Phil - I'd really like to be your friend. If I let you have my email address, would you be so kind as to let me have your thoughts about the outcome of next May's General Election? I'd keep such thoughts to myself naturally. There's a bag of liquorice allsorts in it for you!
@SouthamObserver I do find the burqa debate strays into areas that sound quite crazy when you think them through. It always strikes me as if some of the justification is a little bit paternalistic as if we are doing something "for their own good" as if we should be arbiters of that. I don't have a particular issue with it being worn, of course in areas such as the courts and that there should be a presumption against it but in general I don't go around deliberately noticing it in an effort to be shocked.
There is something almost new Labourish in this constant repetition of this mantra. It has been evident at PMQs and interviews for a while. It is part of the new discipline and focus in tory campaigning that Hodges amongst others has noted.
It is not my favourite thing in politics to be honest but once again Osborne has learned a Mandelson trick and is applying it.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
I hate the burqa, but I am very suspicious of a lot of those calling for it to be banned in the name of women's rights. What do they mean by this? What is a woman's right and what isn't? Does affordable child care count, or being able to take maternity leave without fear of losing your job, or being able to heat your home without having to skimp on other basics, or being able to stay on at school, or go to university, or get a job, or equal pay, or what?
It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
What this means in terms of the burqa is that I do not want to ban it (which is deeply unBritish) but I want to encourage a mindset amongst the communities that wear it that reflects our values of female equality and independence. Wishing for something does not make it happen of course and the way to encourage this is not obvious.
What I think is clear is that education should play an important part. I was concerned to see in the video from the Birmingham school that there was obvious sex segregation. Of course we still have all girls schools which tend to be amongst our best performers but I think this is something that should not be encouraged in state schools, particularly when seeking to address cultures which treat women as second class.
As to women's education, I still remember Nicky Harrison (long-time Chair of Education on Haringey Council) explaining to me that we needed co-eds for boys and single sex schools for girls! Therefore she never promised at election time to do her best for all the Borough's kids...
I was astonished to read Hodges' view that this was a disaster for Ed Miliband.
(On Topic, I am WAY down the table. Please could we throw the spreadsheet down the memory hole? I filled it in before my coffee)
Hodges has, as might be expected, declared that the electoral campaign was a disaster for Labour and a triumph for the Tories. What is interesting though, is that in the reportage, he does seem to be describing a more intelligent and motivated Tory ground campaign than previous elections. Anecdotally, there have been hints of this elsewhere. Has there been a change ? Is there even perhaps a hint of a Jim Messina effect?
I expect Labour to underperform the poll, while UKIP will improve but not by enough.
In each case, your suggested odds correspond closely with Betfair's current prices. I agree with you any late shift is likely to be Lab->UKIP or Con->UKIP, so Mr Helmer might be worth a modest tickle.
I would agree largely with all of these. They could be summarised as the rights and opportunities to participate fully in society. The Niqab prevents this.
DavidL is eloquent and I agree: the problem is the mindset behind the Burqua not the garment itself.
I do not want to see Burquas banned (actually rare in UK, It is the Niqab that is more common)
Though in the clash between protection of cultural rights and womens rights I stand clearly on the side of women.
I think that certain civics teaching should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, in all schools including private ones, including equal rights for women and democratic values.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
Re: burqas, it's worth remembering that the religious underpinning for them is minimal at best. They were and are an explicitly *political* rejection of Western values.
The common usage dates back to Egypt in the late 19th century during the period of British "oversight". At the time they were mainly confirmed to a small group of desert tribes.
Upshot is that this isn't a question of liberal or illiberal. This is an attack on our basic values of everyone being able to participate in society on an equal footing. Don't want to ban them: fine. But make it a policy that to interact with public services you can't wear a burqa & create a safe harbour so any private company doesn't have to serve someone wearing a burqa if they don't want to.
Well, if you want to encourage Islamic radicals including terrorists that's a good way to go.
It's perhaps worth pondering that the key Western "value" which burqa-wearers "reject" is the preference for reason over tradition. I - and a few other older Peebies quite possibly including OGH - will remember (just) grandmothers who, whilst they didn't wear burqas, certainly organised their lives around their own cultural traditions and saw education as destructive of family values. It's only been fifty years or so since respectable Englishwomen left their homes bareheaded, after all.
I hate the burqa, but I am very suspicious of a lot of those calling for it to be banned in the name of women's rights. What do they mean by this? What is a woman's right and what isn't? Does affordable child care count, or being able to take maternity leave without fear of losing your job, or being able to heat your home without having to skimp on other basics, or being able to stay on at school, or go to university, or get a job, or equal pay, or what?
There is something almost new Labourish in this constant repetition of this mantra. It has been evident at PMQs and interviews for a while. It is part of the new discipline and focus in tory campaigning that Hodges amongst others has noted.
It is not my favourite thing in politics to be honest but once again Osborne has learned a Mandelson trick and is applying it.
You know a Tory backbencher is going to say something about a plan, it being about economics, and it being long-term. Much to the merriment of other backbenchers.
As @kieran has pointed out below, today's YouGov is atypical of those for the month of May and specifically of 2010 VI splits.
Of 21 YG daily polls in May, only 5 have given a Labour lead >3; the average lead being: 2.8.
In the last 3 days, 2010 Cons have had a severe dose of UKIPitis - last three polls Con to UKIP being 19,20,18, compared to the previous four of 14,14,15,12 and a monthly average of 16.1. This has lowered the Cons retention to 73,72,74 compared to previous four of 79,77,76,80 and a May average of 76.1.
For the 2010 LDs, todays LD to LAB of 38 is the highest for the month compared to the previous 30,29,28,28,31,27 and a May average of 30.81.
Thus the LD retention of today's 24 is a 2014 low by 5pts - previous LD May retentions are: 32,31,31,37,33,39 with a May average of 33.11.
The LD drift to Green has grown as the month progressed as has the LAB drift to UKIP.
Are we seeing a new realignment after the EUROs?
BTW if any PBer would like my updateable spreadsheet of YG 2010 splits for 2014, I am happy to send OGH a copy or let me know, but I am not always on PB.
I expect Labour to underperform the poll, while UKIP will improve but not by enough.
In each case, your suggested odds correspond closely with Betfair's current prices. I agree with you any late shift is likely to be Lab->UKIP or Con->UKIP, so Mr Helmer might be worth a modest tickle.
I'm currently trading UKIP above and below the 4.5 line on Betfair
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
@SouthamObserver I do find the burqa debate strays into areas that sound quite crazy when you think them through. It always strikes me as if some of the justification is a little bit paternalistic as if we are doing something "for their own good" as if we should be arbiters of that. I don't have a particular issue with it being worn, of course in areas such as the courts and that there should be a presumption against it but in general I don't go around deliberately noticing it in an effort to be shocked.
I agree with your and Fox's comments here - it seems to me to be legitimate to promote integration and equal rights in schools and publically-funded PR, and anyone thinking of living here should take on board that their families are going to hear that. But i'm suspicious of the motives of some of those who want to ban a particular type of clothing in the same way as I'm suspicious of the genuine interest in animal welfare of people who aren't bothered by slaughterhouses but feel passionately about halal and consciousness in the final seconds.
The right balance between collective values and individual freedom seems to be to encourage values that we think should be uncontroversial without bossily telling people what that means for every aspect of their lives.
I was astonished to read Hodges' view that this was a disaster for Ed Miliband.
(On Topic, I am WAY down the table. Please could we throw the spreadsheet down the memory hole? I filled it in before my coffee)
Hodges has, as might be expected, declared that the electoral campaign was a disaster for Labour and a triumph for the Tories. What is interesting though, is that in the reportage, he does seem to be describing a more intelligent and motivated Tory ground campaign than previous elections. Anecdotally, there have been hints of this elsewhere. Has there been a change ? Is there even perhaps a hint of a Jim Messina effect?
Only anecdotal campaign I've seen recently is UKIP.
Mr. Palmer, the alternative to slaughterhouses is vegetarianism. That's like saying people who eat meat can't be concerned about whether it's free range of battery-farmed. There's also the issue not just of whether halal's cruel or not much different to normal slaughter, but that people deserve to know what they're buying.
I expect Labour to underperform the poll, while UKIP will improve but not by enough.
In each case, your suggested odds correspond closely with Betfair's current prices. I agree with you any late shift is likely to be Lab->UKIP or Con->UKIP, so Mr Helmer might be worth a modest tickle.
I'm currently trading UKIP above and below the 4.5 line on Betfair
I was astonished to read Hodges' view that this was a disaster for Ed Miliband.
Hodges has, as might be expected, declared that the electoral campaign was a disaster for Labour and a triumph for the Tories. What is interesting though, is that in the reportage, he does seem to be describing a more intelligent and motivated Tory ground campaign than previous elections. Anecdotally, there have been hints of this elsewhere. Has there been a change ? Is there even perhaps a hint of a Jim Messina effect?
It may well be. Whether bussing in activists and ignoring the local party will please traditionalists is a moot point. The party needed to do something to counter its falling membership.
Also of note was this bit: In every area where a new factory or major new business start-up is identified, voters will be told: “That’s more money in the pockets of local people and more money that’s being spent in your community.”
It reminds us that Conservatives now realise circulation of money matters, which is why cutting wages in poorer regions was a daft idea.
David Stirling of the LRDG (later SAS) in the Desert Campaign - WW2 and his men frequently used female dress when infiltrating the German lines; as did TEL in WW1when he went behind the Turkish lines.
So it becomes a question of true identity as the Israelis have learned.
Whilst places like the Lebanon and Iran have been used to more liberal female dress, it is noticeable that Qatar and Kuwait are tightening such rules for female tourists.
In the more conservative Arabic and Muslim cultures, I have very rarely met the whole family but have been restricted to the male members.
On head-covering, ladies' hats are now mainly seen at weddings and Ascot, but some UK churches such as the Strict Baptists will not allow a woman into their assembly unless her head is covered for which they give Biblical references. Te same applies to some Roman Catholic churches.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
Mr. Palmer, the alternative to slaughterhouses is vegetarianism. That's like saying people who eat meat can't be concerned about whether it's free range of battery-farmed. There's also the issue not just of whether halal's cruel or not much different to normal slaughter, but that people deserve to know what they're buying.
In addition, there's the generally held view that if you eat meat and animals have to be killed then they should be killed in a humane manner - one supported by BVS.
I really dislike the fact that hindquarters of all animals killed under kosher rules are passed unlabelled into the general food chain. I'm tempted to shift to pre-stunned halal just to avoid this.
Mr. Palmer, the alternative to slaughterhouses is vegetarianism. That's like saying people who eat meat can't be concerned about whether it's free range of battery-farmed. There's also the issue not just of whether halal's cruel or not much different to normal slaughter, but that people deserve to know what they're buying.
Of course people should have better food labelling but the way to effect that change isn't to run splash headlines preying on their ignorance to provoke their indignation. Such an approach is indistinguishable from the very worst dog-whistling to intolerance and plain Islamophobia. The way the Sun and Mail went about the story was a complete disgrace we shouldn't be afraid to say so.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
Re: burqas, it's worth remembering that the religious underpinning for them is minimal at best. They were and are an explicitly *political* rejection of Western values.
The common usage dates back to Egypt in the late 19th century during the period of British "oversight". At the time they were mainly confirmed to a small group of desert tribes. The British soldiers had standing orders to remove the face covering from anyone wearing a burqa on the grounds that it was illiberal and oppressive to women. The result: they were adopted as a nationalist symbol that rejected British rule and Western values.
Upshot is that this isn't a question of liberal or illiberal. This is an attack on our basic values of everyone being able to participate in society on an equal footing. Don't want to ban them: fine. But make it a policy that to interact with public services you can't wear a burqa & create a safe harbour so any private company doesn't have to serve someone wearing a burqa if they don't want to.
That's an interesting bit of history. But I don't think your conclusion follows. If the story so far is, "We tried to force them to stop dressing in this way, and that just caused even more people to dress this way", isn't the obvious strategy to stop trying to force people to do dress particular ways? If people feel like they're being pushed around with symbolic cultural stuff they tend to react by doing more of it. Just let people wear want they want, don't bother trying to make dress codes for interacting with public services, apply whatever your normal discrimination laws are indiscriminately and stop trying to impose cultural stuff on them, since it's obviously counter-productive and given time the traditions tend to fade away anyhow.
It reminds me of the Japanese and whaling. It's a dying industry, barely hanging on with government subsidies, sending out boats a long way at great expense to catch meat that hardly anyone wants to eat any more. A bunch of western countries decided it was barbaric and tried to stop the Japanese doing it, the Japanese got upset at being pushed around and the government dug in with more support. If everyone could just say, "Fine, catch whatever you like, we don't care" then STFU about it for a decade or two then they'd stop.
A word of warning in rates for all the yellow box p0rn in here
The BCC upgraded its UK growth forecast to 3.1pc for 2014, from 2.8pc. The UK economy has not shown annual growth of more than 3pc since 2007. Robust growth means the BCC now expects the Bank of England to start raising rates in the first quarter of next year, two quarters earlier than previously forecast. It also upgraded its 2015 forecast to 2.7pc from 2.5pc.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I really dislike such blatantly and deliberately nasty representations of religion. I'm an atheist and find the concept of a god supremely unlikely and generally distasteful, but there is no way I would ever be that insulting about those that took a different view.
I was listening to the news on the radio this morning about the forecast for improved growth due to company investment being up. I was further heartened by the information that a lot of this was in IT and staff training, and fully expect a yellow box post from Avery. Unfortunately (as many of you might have noticed) I have a tendency to a certain degree of cynicism. Is this mood entirely unjustified?
A word of warning in rates for all the yellow box p0rn in here
The BCC upgraded its UK growth forecast to 3.1pc for 2014, from 2.8pc. The UK economy has not shown annual growth of more than 3pc since 2007. Robust growth means the BCC now expects the Bank of England to start raising rates in the first quarter of next year, two quarters earlier than previously forecast. It also upgraded its 2015 forecast to 2.7pc from 2.5pc.
Osborne appointee Mark Carney will never raise interest rates in Q1 next year. He would prefer to raise it after the election. If the fundamentals change, i.e. house prices keep on rocketing upwards, the rise will take place in Q4 2014. It might even be Q3 2014.
Game on in Newark. Labour voters may have to commit supreme sacrifice !
Have postal votes been sent out yet ? Is there a deadline for return?
I would guess they've been sent, I would further guess that they would need to arrive by Thursday morning so I would expect most people will have sent them back by Monday/Tuesday.
It's not nasty at all - what I have said is the reality. Why religion should get special dispensation over and above any other cultural worldview is beyond me. Presumably you would have no problem with my pointing out the flaws in Stalinism?
It's not nasty at all - what I have said is the reality. Why religion should get special dispensation over and above any other cultural worldview is beyond me. Presumably you would have no problem with my pointing out the flaws in Stalinism?
You wouldn't do it in quite such vituperative terms though.
Morning all. Big apology to anyone I offended yesterday, I was in a foul mood, and I think I jumped the shark from spirited teasing to being a complete arse, so sorry if I got up your nose. That said, 7%!?!?! And, I can't find my entry on the spreadsheet, I thought I was in with a shot of top 20, but then again I might be talking hatstand?
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I'm reluctant to conclude that people who believe things that I don't agree with can only do so because they've been brainwashed.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I really dislike such blatantly and deliberately nasty representations of religion. I'm an atheist and find the concept of a god supremely unlikely and generally distasteful, but there is no way I would ever be that insulting about those that took a different view.
I am not sure what you can object to in BobaFett's description beyond the fact he has said it at all. What he has said is a completely accurate reflection of what both Islam and Christianity say:
"Follow our (often completely illogical and random) rules or suffer real pain in this life and eternal damnation and an eternity of horror in the next."
How that can be described as anything but psychopathic is beyond me.
Mr. Palmer, the alternative to slaughterhouses is vegetarianism. That's like saying people who eat meat can't be concerned about whether it's free range of battery-farmed. There's also the issue not just of whether halal's cruel or not much different to normal slaughter, but that people deserve to know what they're buying.
In addition, there's the generally held view that if you eat meat and animals have to be killed then they should be killed in a humane manner - one supported by BVS.
I really dislike the fact that hindquarters of all animals killed under kosher rules are passed unlabelled into the general food chain. I'm tempted to shift to pre-stunned halal just to avoid this.
Yes, I agree with the generally held view, as you'd expect, and labelling seems to me reasonable on general grounds. I'm just wary of those media that appear only concerned with halal practice at the moment of slaughter and evince no interest in other aspects of slaughterhouses, battery farming or any other aspect of animal welfare.
Wrong. I would. You have lost this argument and are projecting. We should not have to pussyfoot around people's superstitions, be they the unwavering belief in a psychotic supreme being or a Great Leader.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I really dislike such blatantly and deliberately nasty representations of religion. I'm an atheist and find the concept of a god supremely unlikely and generally distasteful, but there is no way I would ever be that insulting about those that took a different view.
I am not sure what you can object to in BobaFett's description beyond the fact he has said it at all. What he has said is a completely accurate reflection of what both Islam and Christianity say:
"Follow our (often completely illogical and random) rules or suffer real pain in this life and eternal damnation and an eternity of horror in the next."
How that can be described as anything but psychopathic is beyond me.
Quite, it promotes a negative and dangerous way of being in the real world with the promise of some sort of reward in an imaginary one. It is beyond stupid, and unfortunately those of us that don't believe in fairy tales have to put up with the consequences.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I'm reluctant to conclude that people who believe things that I don't agree with can only do so because they've been brainwashed.
What do you think causes it? Free will? You don't say...
" Steve Ballmer, the former Microsoft chief, has bought the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team for $2bn."
How in God's name can a basketball team be worth $2,000,000,000?
An asset's worth what the market will pay for it, and in this case the market consisted of somebody with $20,000,000,000 who really, really liked the Los Angeles Clippers...
A study some time ago (no link, I'm afraid, heard it from a chap I trust online about a decade ago) found that the biggest factor in predicting faith or lack thereof in America was what an individual's parents believe.
Mind you, that's probably also the biggest factor in determining which football team they support.
@DavidL - It's tricky isn't it? I think that the fundamental problem has been multiculturalism and the positive encouragement of the perpetuation of different cultures within the UK. Provided we have the infrastructure and jobs to cope I don't have a problem with immigration per se. What I have a problem with is people coming to this country but then still living and behaving as if they were still in the Punjab or east Africa.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Their motives are pretty clear. They have been brainwashed from an early age into thinking a psychopathic supreme being will do nasty things to them unless they wear a burqa. Why else would they choose to view the world through a three-inch slot?
I'm reluctant to conclude that people who believe things that I don't agree with can only do so because they've been brainwashed.
I can't really see how the way in which religions influence people's perceptions of the world from a very early age can be described as anything but brainwashing.
I hate the burqa, but I am very suspicious of a lot of those calling for it to be banned in the name of women's rights. What do they mean by this? What is a woman's right and what isn't? Does affordable child care count, or being able to take maternity leave without fear of losing your job, or being able to heat your home without having to skimp on other basics, or being able to stay on at school, or go to university, or get a job, or equal pay, or what?
The word "rights" is much overused. This list is (rather like corporeal's interpretation of the word "racism") using the word to include whatever your politics suit it to cover. Some of your examples are little more than "nice to haves".
Edit: For clarity- although you have phrased your comment as a question I suspect that you see all of these things as "rights"
I can't really see how the way in which religions influence people's perceptions of the world from a very early age can be described as anything but brainwashing.
Might not the argument be that teaching children Epicureanism from an early age is also brainwashing?
Human rights breaches are now meaningless as an expression, because they cover anything from the horrific North Korean concentration camps to an inability to deport a convicted Italian murderer because he can't speak Italian.
It's a bit IngSoc, the way that terms have become broader and vaguer, and empty of meaning.
Game on in Newark. Labour voters may have to commit supreme sacrifice !
Most Labour voters I know would never dare dream of voting UKIP.
But then again I think Labour has a big split between it's bumpkin sticks and it's latte city vote, the former more receptive to UKIP. I was surprised Labour was on 27, thought they would be lower and I don't think they will get 26% in the final result (Take off 1% for Bus Pass Elvis etc)
I can't really see how the way in which religions influence people's perceptions of the world from a very early age can be described as anything but brainwashing.
Might not the argument be that teaching children Epicureanism from an early age is also brainwashing?
Any teaching from an early age that refuses to acknowledge the existence of any other form of thinking could probably reasonably be described as brain washing. It is not the teaching that is the issue, it is the explicit threats if one does not follow those teachings that is the problem.
Mr. Palmer, the alternative to slaughterhouses is vegetarianism. That's like saying people who eat meat can't be concerned about whether it's free range of battery-farmed. There's also the issue not just of whether halal's cruel or not much different to normal slaughter, but that people deserve to know what they're buying.
In addition, there's the generally held view that if you eat meat and animals have to be killed then they should be killed in a humane manner - one supported by BVS.
I really dislike the fact that hindquarters of all animals killed under kosher rules are passed unlabelled into the general food chain. I'm tempted to shift to pre-stunned halal just to avoid this.
Yes, I agree with the generally held view, as you'd expect, and labelling seems to me reasonable on general grounds. I'm just wary of those media that appear only concerned with halal practice at the moment of slaughter and evince no interest in other aspects of slaughterhouses, battery farming or any other aspect of animal welfare.
Stuff should just be labelled correctly, end of.
In addition strictly speaking Sikhs can't eat any animal that was ritually slaughtered so it is a matter of religous choice/freedom to them that stuff should be properly labelled as halal/kosher.
It went to the funny farm ages ago. Unfortunately it has become a religion along with consumerism and is brainwashed into our children. *innocent face*, etc.
Comments
"Black! Black in the mouth... Black! Like Inky the octopus that comes lolloping along... Mr Pinky hits his hammer. Hit! Hit! Hit! How far in the trunk, mummy? How far in the trunk? Glenda knows, Glenda knows! Equestrian cement! Equestrian cement! Underarm... You're in my telescope..."
In between the words, I could hear the man saying "sorry?" and "hello?" a few times. I managed to finish almost all of the entire script before he cut me off.
It made me feel a whole lot better after being grumpy and annoyed for the last week after the voters of Croydon had not only the stupidity to vote Labour in their own safe wards, but also the impertinence to impose a Labour council on the rest of us.
Sorry, have been busy last few days and weeks and months. Need a holiday!
Re: burqas, it's worth remembering that the religious underpinning for them is minimal at best. They were and are an explicitly *political* rejection of Western values.
The common usage dates back to Egypt in the late 19th century during the period of British "oversight". At the time they were mainly confirmed to a small group of desert tribes. The British soldiers had standing orders to remove the face covering from anyone wearing a burqa on the grounds that it was illiberal and oppressive to women. The result: they were adopted as a nationalist symbol that rejected British rule and Western values.
Upshot is that this isn't a question of liberal or illiberal. This is an attack on our basic values of everyone being able to participate in society on an equal footing. Don't want to ban them: fine. But make it a policy that to interact with public services you can't wear a burqa & create a safe harbour so any private company doesn't have to serve someone wearing a burqa if they don't want to.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100273908/the-war-games-are-over-and-its-the-tories-who-are-smiling/
Why on earth would Lord Rennard apologise for something that was untrue and only got up by C4 to harm the Lib Dems in the Eastleigh by-election?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/29/lord-rennard-apology-for-possibly-encroaching-on-activists-personal-space
Alex Salmond’s claim that Scotland is one of the richest countries in the developed world has been challenged in a study by Glasgow University academics which finds it is a middle-ranking economy with high levels of foreign ownership.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/29/scotland-wealth-alex-salmond-study
That said, the Tory message did seem much more focussed this time.
1. The men / women numbers show the Conservatives on 31/32 and Labour on 37/38. There is obviously a potential rounding issue here. If the poll gave a 37.6-31.4 split then it was effectively a 5 point lead, not 7, which would be quite similar to the previous days.
2. There is a particularly large number of LD to Lab switchers. LD 2010 voters split Lab 38 LD 24, Con 14, UKIP 11 and Green 10. Also a relatively high number of Con to UKIP switcher (19%) and Lab to UKIP switchers (9%), although not a dramatic rise.
Therefore there may be the potential for Labour to sustain a small lead in the short term if the LD chaos has pushed more switchers to Labour. However, as it dies down you would expect these to return to normal and the Labour position to fall back.
It does seem to reaffirm though the view that the GE will be decided by the level of LD to Labour and Con to UKIP switching.
I'd be shocked if there wasn't an unwinding of both as the election approaches.
Well I certainly expect it to unwind compared to that YG poll!
The question is how much unwind will happen? Personally I expect more unwind of the Con to UKIP switching than the LD to Lab switching. As the election becomes more of a contest between Labour and Conservative UKIP switchers will be pushed back whereas LD voters (certainly in the Lab / Con marginals) will be pushed to stay.
Though NickP was 236 ;-)
Con gratulations to Wulfren Phil, and Shadsy is a hard man to take money off!
Overall I came out £20 up, at least I got turnout right.
It's perhaps worth pondering that the key Western "value" which burqa-wearers "reject" is the preference for reason over tradition. I - and a few other older Peebies quite possibly including OGH - will remember (just) grandmothers who, whilst they didn't wear burqas, certainly organised their lives around their own cultural traditions and saw education as destructive of family values. It's only been fifty years or so since respectable Englishwomen left their homes bareheaded, after all.
He's tried before to win by avoiding the herd view and slipping through to win a surprise victory from a generally discounted result.
CON +33.1
UKIP -19.47
LAB +51.96
A decent Newark book.
38.88 was obviously an error.
Though in the clash between protection of cultural rights and womens rights I stand clearly on the side of women.
I think that certain civics teaching should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, in all schools including private ones, including equal rights for women and democratic values.
How many entries did he have? :
N. Palmer .. Nick Palmer .. Nick P .. Nicholas Palmer .. Nick Palmer EXMP .. N Palmer EXMP .. Peoples Judean Front for Nick Palmer .. Nick Palmer - Broxtowe's Choice.
Some voters may decide that the Lib Dems are not best placed to defeat the Tories, even in seats that the Lib Dems currently hold, because they see the way in which the Lib Dem vote is dissipating. It matters not whether these voters are wrong, but if the impression is created then it becomes self-fulfilling.
In FPTP victory is sometimes a matter of confidence in the way in which other voters will vote, rather than being a simple reflection of political opinion. This confidence can act either to dampen or amplify the underlying changes in political opinion.
Almost as much as anything else the Lib Dems fortunes rely on how well people think they will do.
But only 5% of the population thought the Lib Dems did better than expected according to YouGov.
And 63% thought UKIP did better than they expected.
As you say not everyone was expecting the UKIP win even almost everyone here had it priced as odds on.
That is simply tremendous Mr Loony - I have printed off a copy of your wonderful prose and it now sits beside the phone awaiting a recital by yours truly. I can barely wait, the excitement is such!
I'd keep such thoughts to myself naturally.
There's a bag of liquorice allsorts in it for you!
I do find the burqa debate strays into areas that sound quite crazy when you think them through. It always strikes me as if some of the justification is a little bit paternalistic as if we are doing something "for their own good" as if we should be arbiters of that. I don't have a particular issue with it being worn, of course in areas such as the courts and that there should be a presumption against it but in general I don't go around deliberately noticing it in an effort to be shocked.
1-4 CON
7-2 UKIP
20-1 Labour
I expect Labour to underperform the poll, while UKIP will improve but not by enough.
"A spokesman from HM Treasury said that today’s reports provide “further evidence that the government’s long term economic plan is working”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10863667/Triple-boost-for-Chancellor-as-growth-soars.html
There is something almost new Labourish in this constant repetition of this mantra. It has been evident at PMQs and interviews for a while. It is part of the new discipline and focus in tory campaigning that Hodges amongst others has noted.
It is not my favourite thing in politics to be honest but once again Osborne has learned a Mandelson trick and is applying it.
Hodges has, as might be expected, declared that the electoral campaign was a disaster for Labour and a triumph for the Tories.
What is interesting though, is that in the reportage, he does seem to be describing a more intelligent and motivated Tory ground campaign than previous elections. Anecdotally, there have been hints of this elsewhere.
Has there been a change ? Is there even perhaps a hint of a Jim Messina effect?
DavidL is eloquent and I agree: the problem is the mindset behind the Burqua not the garment itself.
Congrats, Mr. Wulfrun.
Alas, I did rather poorly. Not as bad as Clegg, of course, but still not very good.
As @kieran has pointed out below, today's YouGov is atypical of those for the month of May and specifically of 2010 VI splits.
Of 21 YG daily polls in May, only 5 have given a Labour lead >3; the average lead being: 2.8.
In the last 3 days, 2010 Cons have had a severe dose of UKIPitis - last three polls Con to UKIP being 19,20,18, compared to the previous four of 14,14,15,12 and a monthly average of 16.1. This has lowered the Cons retention to 73,72,74 compared to previous four of 79,77,76,80 and a May average of 76.1.
For the 2010 LDs, todays LD to LAB of 38 is the highest for the month compared to the previous 30,29,28,28,31,27 and a May average of 30.81.
Thus the LD retention of today's 24 is a 2014 low by 5pts - previous LD May retentions are: 32,31,31,37,33,39 with a May average of 33.11.
The LD drift to Green has grown as the month progressed as has the LAB drift to UKIP.
Are we seeing a new realignment after the EUROs?
BTW if any PBer would like my updateable spreadsheet of YG 2010 splits for 2014, I am happy to send OGH a copy or let me know, but I am not always on PB.
I agree completely. I have absolutely no problems with diversity in culture, language or anything else; in fact, I would hate the opposite. But complete separation from British life while living in Britain is fundamentally wrong and harmful. And we should say this and also be unafraid to state that the way we operate is fundamentally better than the way they do things in countries and cultures that actively oppress/discriminate against people based on gender, sexuality, colour, caste etc. Schools should teach it, politicians and others should preach it. You can have diversity and a fundamental set of values that everyone abides by. Part of that, though, is accepting that people are different and that they may choose to dress differently. Once you start to second guess their motives, you run into a whole heap of trouble.
Never underestimate the ability of Labour to mess up in the Euros, even when differential turnout due to local elections is helping them.
I'm worried that this could be a sting operation by Shadsy.
Funnily enough I don't think the Telegraph want a 'thoughtful critic'.
Edited extra bit: and McLaren are denying rumours Honda are considering buying a stake in the team.
Next year Honda will supply McLaren's engines, and only theirs. After that initial year I believe Honda may supply other teams as well.
The right balance between collective values and individual freedom seems to be to encourage values that we think should be uncontroversial without bossily telling people what that means for every aspect of their lives. A generous interpretation and the truth is that I can't remember. Perhaps, or perhaps I was just making a crap prediction...
Also of note was this bit: In every area where a new factory or major new business start-up is identified, voters will be told: “That’s more money in the pockets of local people and more money that’s being spent in your community.”
It reminds us that Conservatives now realise circulation of money matters, which is why cutting wages in poorer regions was a daft idea.
Not many finished above Shadsy and of those that did I recognise only one of PB's regular punters. This is worrying.
Mind you, I didn't notice an entry from JackW. Surely his would have outshone all others if he could have been ARSEd.
David Stirling of the LRDG (later SAS) in the Desert Campaign - WW2 and his men frequently used female dress when infiltrating the German lines; as did TEL in WW1when he went behind the Turkish lines.
So it becomes a question of true identity as the Israelis have learned.
Whilst places like the Lebanon and Iran have been used to more liberal female dress, it is noticeable that Qatar and Kuwait are tightening such rules for female tourists.
In the more conservative Arabic and Muslim cultures, I have very rarely met the whole family but have been restricted to the male members.
On head-covering, ladies' hats are now mainly seen at weddings and Ascot, but some UK churches such as the Strict Baptists will not allow a woman into their assembly unless her head is covered for which they give Biblical references. Te same applies to some Roman Catholic churches.
I am not too disappointed with 7th...
I really dislike the fact that hindquarters of all animals killed under kosher rules are passed unlabelled into the general food chain. I'm tempted to shift to pre-stunned halal just to avoid this.
I very much doubt Populus will confirm the shift later.
It reminds me of the Japanese and whaling. It's a dying industry, barely hanging on with government subsidies, sending out boats a long way at great expense to catch meat that hardly anyone wants to eat any more. A bunch of western countries decided it was barbaric and tried to stop the Japanese doing it, the Japanese got upset at being pushed around and the government dug in with more support. If everyone could just say, "Fine, catch whatever you like, we don't care" then STFU about it for a decade or two then they'd stop.
A word of warning in rates for all the yellow box p0rn in here
The BCC upgraded its UK growth forecast to 3.1pc for 2014, from 2.8pc. The UK economy has not shown annual growth of more than 3pc since 2007.
Robust growth means the BCC now expects the Bank of England to start raising rates in the first quarter of next year, two quarters earlier than previously forecast. It also upgraded its 2015 forecast to 2.7pc from 2.5pc.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Mating-seagulls-smash-glass-roof-new-Bristol/story-21164331-detail/story.html
Randy Gulls break glass roof at new hospital.
I was further heartened by the information that a lot of this was in IT and staff training, and fully expect a yellow box post from Avery.
Unfortunately (as many of you might have noticed) I have a tendency to a certain degree of cynicism.
Is this mood entirely unjustified?
http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/enterprise/end-of-support.aspx
Correlation is not indicative of causation of course..
It's not nasty at all - what I have said is the reality. Why religion should get special dispensation over and above any other cultural worldview is beyond me. Presumably you would have no problem with my pointing out the flaws in Stalinism?
Big apology to anyone I offended yesterday, I was in a foul mood, and I think I jumped the shark from spirited teasing to being a complete arse, so sorry if I got up your nose.
That said, 7%!?!?!
And, I can't find my entry on the spreadsheet, I thought I was in with a shot of top 20, but then again I might be talking hatstand?
"Follow our (often completely illogical and random) rules or suffer real pain in this life and eternal damnation and an eternity of horror in the next."
How that can be described as anything but psychopathic is beyond me.
How in God's name can a basketball team be worth $2,000,000,000?
Wrong. I would. You have lost this argument and are projecting. We should not have to pussyfoot around people's superstitions, be they the unwavering belief in a psychotic supreme being or a Great Leader.
Mind you, that's probably also the biggest factor in determining which football team they support.
Edit: For clarity- although you have phrased your comment as a question I suspect that you see all of these things as "rights"
Human rights breaches are now meaningless as an expression, because they cover anything from the horrific North Korean concentration camps to an inability to deport a convicted Italian murderer because he can't speak Italian.
It's a bit IngSoc, the way that terms have become broader and vaguer, and empty of meaning.
But then again I think Labour has a big split between it's bumpkin sticks and it's latte city vote, the former more receptive to UKIP. I was surprised Labour was on 27, thought they would be lower and I don't think they will get 26% in the final result (Take off 1% for Bus Pass Elvis etc)
In addition strictly speaking Sikhs can't eat any animal that was ritually slaughtered so it is a matter of religous choice/freedom to them that stuff should be properly labelled as halal/kosher.
"Capitalism gone mad"
It went to the funny farm ages ago.
Unfortunately it has become a religion along with consumerism and is brainwashed into our children.
*innocent face*, etc.