"It’s a common claim from Conservatives and political commentators that David Cameron’s personal ratings will deliver them victory in a year’s time. However a Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday at the weekend questions this assumption. The pollsters asked voters to explain which factors were most important to them in determining how they vote. They found that the individual leader was not the most important factor for most people.
When asked to rank the following factors in order of how much they affect which party people choose, the most important were:
The policies set out in the party’s manifesto 37% The quality of the party’s leader 17% The broader ethos of the party 17% The quality of my local MP 13% Preventing another party getting into power 10% The quality of the party’s potential ministers 7%"
I ask again, in a different way. What proportion of people would spend their lives living in restrictive religious garb were it not drummed into them from an early age that nasty things will happen to them did they not?
Now consider what proportion of people would seek food, sex and entertainment without similar prompts.
I suspect you would find rather more of the latter, than the former.
But as Hobbes argued, contra Augustine, in a state of nature, life is nasty, short and brutish. It is precisely because men are naturally inclined to licentious behaviour that (a) you need temporal authority to restrain their excessive transitive actions and (b) some degree of brainwashing is a thoroughly good idea. Is it brainwashing to teach children that murder, rape and robbery are wrong, and when committed, will surely be punished? Certainly, even if these crimes would occur in a state of nature. Is it a good idea? Absolutely.
They didn't, however, have the minor candidates on the same screen as the major candidates - which is a bit weird given how they will appear on the ballot paper.
Also it looks as though they put UKIP at the top of the list - I'm assuming that the order on the data table is the same as the order the questions were presented on screen. [Is that right?]
I can't work out how they decided to put them in that order.
The candidate order in the VI question was randomised.
(See under the 'Voting intention' heading on the opening page)
Thanks.
Take that blunder, and coming below Southam "Romney" Observer, and it is clearly a sign that today is not my day.
Another future member of my harem, Miss Christina Hendricks.
Does your wife have to approve the list, in the traditional manner?
Yes, she approves of them all.
For full disclosure the list includes, Karen Gillan, Christina Hendricks, Emma Stone, Nicole Kidman, Kat Dennings, any members of Girls Aloud, Megan Fox and Scarlett Johansson, Rachel Riley, Sofía Vergara (also Benedict Cumberbatch and Tom Hiddleston are also on the list)
Not knowing who Karen Gillan is, I looked her up on wiki. Are you quite sure, TSE? I mean, it worked for Demi Moore, but....
"It’s a common claim from Conservatives and political commentators that David Cameron’s personal ratings will deliver them victory in a year’s time. However a Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday at the weekend questions this assumption. The pollsters asked voters to explain which factors were most important to them in determining how they vote. They found that the individual leader was not the most important factor for most people.
When asked to rank the following factors in order of how much they affect which party people choose, the most important were:
The policies set out in the party’s manifesto 37% The quality of the party’s leader 17% The broader ethos of the party 17% The quality of my local MP 13% Preventing another party getting into power 10% The quality of the party’s potential ministers 7%"
Has anyone any idea when Ladbrokes are going to put their constituency markets back up? I'm looking forward to updating some of my posts, but I don't want to do so until I have constituency markets to bet on.
They didn't, however, have the minor candidates on the same screen as the major candidates - which is a bit weird given how they will appear on the ballot paper.
Also it looks as though they put UKIP at the top of the list - I'm assuming that the order on the data table is the same as the order the questions were presented on screen. [Is that right?]
I can't work out how they decided to put them in that order.
No, they say they named the main 4 candidates (Con/Lab/UKIP/LD) in randomised order. Then if people said "none of those" they read them all the others.
Has anyone any idea when Ladbrokes are going to put their constituency markets back up? I'm looking forward to updating some of my posts, but I don't want to do so until I have constituency markets to bet on.
Has anyone any idea when Ladbrokes are going to put their constituency markets back up? I'm looking forward to updating some of my posts, but I don't want to do so until I have constituency markets to bet on.
Isn't there a fundamental problem for UKIP around winning Westminster seats, due to the nature of its support?
UKIP is essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner party. This kind of voter springs into existence wherever a lot of immigrants are in evidence. However, the presence of immigrants tends to cancel out the anti-immigrant sentiment electorally. So that while there will be a number of UKIPpers voting against immigrants in any given seat, the immigrants and those who empathise with them will be aware of UKIP and motivated to vote against them.
Conversely, though, in a seat that hasn't seen much immigration, they'll also have trouble winning. If there hasn't been enough immigration, nothing is generating a critical mass of anti-immigrant voters.
It seems to follow that in a seat where there's been a lot of immigration they can't win, and in a seat where there hasn't been a lot of immigration they can't win.
This model predicts that UKIP would only ever be able to win on protest votes and in silly elections that don't matter. Protest voters don't care what they stand for. In trivial elections such as the euros their natural opposition can't be bothered to mobilise because the outcome doesn't actually matter.
The above model predicts that UKIP can win in the euros (both a protest vote and one that doesn't matter) and perhaps the odd Westminster by-election. They can also win council seats, because the smaller wards and the ghettoisation that multiculturalism actually produces mean there can be local pools of support large enough to return councillors.
But on this analysis, the natural limit on UKIP representation at Westminster would appear to be about 0 to 2 seats, or thereabouts; i.e. whatever marginal-ish seats become available in by-elections between GEs.
They didn't, however, have the minor candidates on the same screen as the major candidates - which is a bit weird given how they will appear on the ballot paper.
Also it looks as though they put UKIP at the top of the list - I'm assuming that the order on the data table is the same as the order the questions were presented on screen. [Is that right?]
I can't work out how they decided to put them in that order.
The candidate order in the VI question was randomised.
(See under the 'Voting intention' heading on the opening page)
Thanks.
Take that blunder, and coming below Southam "Romney" Observer, and it is clearly a sign that today is not my day.
Southam Observer is one of the reasons I don't think Labour are heading for disaster at GE2015.
Has anyone any idea when Ladbrokes are going to put their constituency markets back up? I'm looking forward to updating some of my posts, but I don't want to do so until I have constituency markets to bet on.
Amen to that - mind you, it’s a sad day when bribery and corruption within the pages of PB.com. go challenged..!
No names, no pack drill, but the temptation of ‘Liquorice Allsorts’ is the first step on the slippery slope IMHO.
I started it the other night when I was discussing doing a thread encouraging Dave to make JohnO a peer.
I said PBers could add themselves to the list for £500 a pop (merely to cover the costs of running PB)
Dave, Dave, if you there - and I know you are - we did increase our majority last week. Just saying like. By the way, will you be at the Garden Party at Buck House next week?
That's quite some hobnobbing :')
Unfortunately, I'm told there's no booze only a few cucumber sandwiches and tea or coffee or orange juice. But the gardens are apparently worth exploring.
Has anyone any idea when Ladbrokes are going to put their constituency markets back up? I'm looking forward to updating some of my posts, but I don't want to do so until I have constituency markets to bet on.
UKIP is essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner party. This kind of voter springs into existence wherever a lot of immigrants are in evidence. However, the presence of immigrants tends to cancel out the anti-immigrant sentiment electorally. So that while there will be a number of UKIPpers voting against immigrants in any given seat, the immigrants and those who empathise with them will be aware of UKIP and motivated to vote against them.
Nope. They also do well where there is a fear of immigration and change. East Anglia is not chock-full of Johnny Foreigners, but UKIP are very strong there.
"It’s a common claim from Conservatives and political commentators that David Cameron’s personal ratings will deliver them victory in a year’s time. However a Survation poll for the Mail on Sunday at the weekend questions this assumption. The pollsters asked voters to explain which factors were most important to them in determining how they vote. They found that the individual leader was not the most important factor for most people.
When asked to rank the following factors in order of how much they affect which party people choose, the most important were:
The policies set out in the party’s manifesto 37% The quality of the party’s leader 17% The broader ethos of the party 17% The quality of my local MP 13% Preventing another party getting into power 10% The quality of the party’s potential ministers 7%"
Also note that the poll weights for certainty to vote, which has slightly increased the UKIP and Labour share since their supporters say they are 73/71% certain to vote, compared to 66% for the Tories, and on the other hand that people not voting UKIP were asked if they were thinking about doing so, to which 16% of Tories and 11% of Labour said yes. If say half of those actually did so, the result would (in the absence of other change) Con 33, UKIP 33, Lab 25. But for completeness one would need to see how many current UKIP and Labour supporters are thinking of voting for someone else.
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.
That mentality sets in when people feel like they're being told what to do by outsiders. If Muslim Britons feel like other Britons having a view on burkas are imposing a view from the outside, then that just shows what a clusterf*ck integration in this country has been.
Who said anything about them having a view? They can have whatever view they like, that's not imposing anything. What I understood Charles to be advocating is thing like refusing government services, without a practical need to do so (like a ban on face covering in banks) on grounds of failure to adhere to a dress code. That crosses the line between having a view and imposing it on other people.
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.
That mentality sets in when people feel like they're being told what to do by outsiders. If Muslim Britons feel like other Britons having a view on burkas are imposing a view from the outside, then that just shows what a clusterf*ck integration in this country has been. In America, immigrants gaining citizenship must demonstrate in interviews that they are "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States." We need to do the same here. If in the interview you don't clearly support Western values of free speech, equality of sexes and freedom of religion, then you should never be let in. Given opinion polls on these things, that should eliminate a lot of immigration from the religiously backwards part of the world.
Immigration from failed states is certainly undesirable. As to the values you mention, plenty of indigenous Westerners would reject them, or at any rate, have very different ideas about what they mean in practice.
"It was Tax Freedom Day on Wednesday. Calculated by the Adam Smith Institute, it’s the day in the year when you finally start working for yourself and stop working for the taxman. It means that you will have worked 148 days of this year to fill Treasury coffers.
We want this day to fall much, much earlier in the future. That means tax cuts and a radical simplification of the tax system. But that can only happen if politicians stop spending so much of our cash - they must launch a serious War on Waste to make sure they get value from every single penny of taxpayers’ money."
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.
That mentality sets in when people feel like they're being told what to do by outsiders. If Muslim Britons feel like other Britons having a view on burkas are imposing a view from the outside, then that just shows what a clusterf*ck integration in this country has been. In America, immigrants gaining citizenship must demonstrate in interviews that they are "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States." We need to do the same here. If in the interview you don't clearly support Western values of free speech, equality of sexes and freedom of religion, then you should never be let in. Given opinion polls on these things, that should eliminate a lot of immigration from the religiously backwards part of the world.
Considering this country currently has in place, and has had in place a terrible equality of the sexes at the very top, that's a bit harsh on the incoming immigrants.
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.
That mentality sets in when people feel like they're being told what to do by outsiders. If Muslim Britons feel like other Britons having a view on burkas are imposing a view from the outside, then that just shows what a clusterf*ck integration in this country has been. In America, immigrants gaining citizenship must demonstrate in interviews that they are "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States." We need to do the same here. If in the interview you don't clearly support Western values of free speech, equality of sexes and freedom of religion, then you should never be let in. Given opinion polls on these things, that should eliminate a lot of immigration from the religiously backwards part of the world.
Considering this country currently has in place, and has had in place a terrible equality of the sexes at the very top, that's a bit harsh on the incoming immigrants.
Supporting a principle and struggling to get in enacted perfectly are clearly different things. Only one of our four great offices of state is a woman. In Pakistan, a woman was just stoned to death by her family for marrying someone they disapproved of while the police stood by. There's clearly a large gulf here.
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.
That mentality sets in when people feel like they're being told what to do by outsiders. If Muslim Britons feel like other Britons having a view on burkas are imposing a view from the outside, then that just shows what a clusterf*ck integration in this country has been. In America, immigrants gaining citizenship must demonstrate in interviews that they are "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States." We need to do the same here. If in the interview you don't clearly support Western values of free speech, equality of sexes and freedom of religion, then you should never be let in. Given opinion polls on these things, that should eliminate a lot of immigration from the religiously backwards part of the world.
Considering this country currently has in place, and has had in place a terrible equality of the sexes at the very top, that's a bit harsh on the incoming immigrants.
Supporting a principle and struggling to get in enacted perfectly are clearly different things. Only one of our four great offices of state is a woman. In Pakistan, a woman was just stoned to death by her family for marrying someone they disapproved of while the police stood by. There's clearly a large gulf here.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
Who said anything about them having a view? They can have whatever view they like, that's not imposing anything. What I understood Charles to be advocating is thing like refusing government services, without a practical need to do so (like a ban on face covering in banks) on grounds of failure to adhere to a dress code. That crosses the line between having a view and imposing it on other people.
You're not allowed to wear balaclavas or motorcycle helmets in banks. Why should Muslim reactionaries get special privileges?
"it is the explicit threats if one does not follow those teachings that is the problem."
A little excitable today? I can't say that I was ever explicitly threatened by Christians when growing up, and I suspect I'm older than you. Chill out a little (and I promise that is not threatening in any way).
I was at a state comprehensive but taught by nuns part time as I was from a Catholic family. I can assure you the threats (and actual physical violence) were very real.
One thing I find ludicrous about Christianity is that they have this holy book which is supposedly the text to guide their lives and they then claim half of it doesn't count (the half that makes them look bad)
The Bible is a book filled with threats and prohibitions.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
The irony is that despite male primogeniture, for 129 of the last 180 years, our sovereign has been a woman. In any event, male primogeniture will be abolished when section 1 of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 comes into force.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
Who said anything about them having a view? They can have whatever view they like, that's not imposing anything. What I understood Charles to be advocating is thing like refusing government services, without a practical need to do so (like a ban on face covering in banks) on grounds of failure to adhere to a dress code. That crosses the line between having a view and imposing it on other people.
You're not allowed to wear balaclavas or motorcycle helmets in banks. Why should Muslim reactionaries get special privileges?
I don't think they should, that's what I'm saying. My point is that provided there isn't a strong practical reason like that, government shouldn't discriminate.
Who said anything about them having a view? They can have whatever view they like, that's not imposing anything. What I understood Charles to be advocating is thing like refusing government services, without a practical need to do so (like a ban on face covering in banks) on grounds of failure to adhere to a dress code. That crosses the line between having a view and imposing it on other people.
You're not allowed to wear balaclavas or motorcycle helmets in banks. Why should Muslim reactionaries get special privileges?
I don't think they should, that's what I'm saying. My point is that provided there isn't a strong practical reason like that, government shouldn't discriminate.
What is the strong practical reason to force nudists to cover up?
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
Because we had to get more than dozen other countries to agree. And the push behind the change was because the law was severely lagging the principles of the country.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
We've finally got rid of the sexist element, but what about the sectarianism?
I was at a state comprehensive but taught by nuns part time as I was from a Catholic family. I can assure you the threats (and actual physical violence) were very real.
One thing I find ludicrous about Christianity is that they have this holy book which is supposedly the text to guide their lives and they then claim half of it doesn't count (the half that makes them look bad)
The Bible is a book filled with threats and prohibitions.
It is not ludicrous at all. The New Testament makes perfectly clear that Gentiles, in an age of grace, do not have to follow the Old Testament, apart from the commandments, which applied in an age of law and was suited to Jews. In any event, the statute book is a 'filled with threats and prohibitions.' Is it wrong to teach children its contents? Some of what is on the statute book is, in my view, outrageous and contrary to right reason...
Who said anything about them having a view? They can have whatever view they like, that's not imposing anything. What I understood Charles to be advocating is thing like refusing government services, without a practical need to do so (like a ban on face covering in banks) on grounds of failure to adhere to a dress code. That crosses the line between having a view and imposing it on other people.
You're not allowed to wear balaclavas or motorcycle helmets in banks. Why should Muslim reactionaries get special privileges?
I don't think they should, that's what I'm saying. My point is that provided there isn't a strong practical reason like that, government shouldn't discriminate.
What is the strong practical reason to force nudists to cover up?
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
The irony is that despite male primogeniture, for 129 of the last 180 years, our sovereign has been a woman. In any event, male primogeniture will be abolished when section 1 of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 comes into force.
In surveys of England/Britain/UK's best monarchs, Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II generally dominate the top five. With a record like that, female primogeniture might be a sensible system.
Who said anything about them having a view? They can have whatever view they like, that's not imposing anything. What I understood Charles to be advocating is thing like refusing government services, without a practical need to do so (like a ban on face covering in banks) on grounds of failure to adhere to a dress code. That crosses the line between having a view and imposing it on other people.
You're not allowed to wear balaclavas or motorcycle helmets in banks. Why should Muslim reactionaries get special privileges?
I don't think they should, that's what I'm saying. My point is that provided there isn't a strong practical reason like that, government shouldn't discriminate.
What is the strong practical reason to force nudists to cover up?
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
We've finally got rid of the sexist element, but what about the sectarianism?
I particularly liked Rees-Mogg's idea for a regency for the Governorship of the Church of England if the monarch was Catholic.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
The trouble with the changes were that they only apply to the monarchy and not to lesser ranks of the nobility. It does seem somewhat odd that the crown passes on a first come first serves basis now but any title given to Harry when he eventually marries will only pass to heirs male and won't at all if he only has daughters. Utterly ridiculous.
It does seem somewhat odd that the crown passes on a first come first serves basis now but any title given to Harry when he eventually marries will only pass to heirs male and won't at all if he only has daughters. Utterly ridiculous.
Is it more or less odd than the idea of giving the guy some kind of elevated title for having convinced someone to marry him in the first place?
Who said anything about them having a view? They can have whatever view they like, that's not imposing anything. What I understood Charles to be advocating is thing like refusing government services, without a practical need to do so (like a ban on face covering in banks) on grounds of failure to adhere to a dress code. That crosses the line between having a view and imposing it on other people.
You're not allowed to wear balaclavas or motorcycle helmets in banks. Why should Muslim reactionaries get special privileges?
I don't think they should, that's what I'm saying. My point is that provided there isn't a strong practical reason like that, government shouldn't discriminate.
What is the strong practical reason to force nudists to cover up?
Amen to that - mind you, it’s a sad day when bribery and corruption within the pages of PB.com. go challenged..!
No names, no pack drill, but the temptation of ‘Liquorice Allsorts’ is the first step on the slippery slope IMHO.
I started it the other night when I was discussing doing a thread encouraging Dave to make JohnO a peer.
I said PBers could add themselves to the list for £500 a pop (merely to cover the costs of running PB)
Dave, Dave, if you there - and I know you are - we did increase our majority last week. Just saying like. By the way, will you be at the Garden Party at Buck House next week?
That's quite some hobnobbing :')
Unfortunately, I'm told there's no booze only a few cucumber sandwiches and tea or coffee or orange juice. But the gardens are apparently worth exploring.
Having had a tour of the Gardens last year I can vouch for the quality of them. See if you can you spot the three (or maybe four) helicopter landing stations in the Gardens. Very well disguised, I thought.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
The trouble with the changes were that they only apply to the monarchy and not to lesser ranks of the nobility. It does seem somewhat odd that the crown passes on a first come first serves basis now but any title given to Harry when he eventually marries will only pass to heirs male and won't at all if he only has daughters. Utterly ridiculous.
Indeed, unfortunately some people don't focus on that.
We've finally got rid of the sexist element, but what about the sectarianism?
Section two of the 2013 Act does remove the prohibition on the sovereign or those in the line of succession marrying papists. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong to have a papist as head of the Church of England, while the church is established. Moreover, even supposing disestablishment occurred, many would find it questionable if someone who believed that the pope of Rome can depose the monarch of England and overrule judgments of Her courts of justice, were Head of State.
Who said anything about them having a view? They can have whatever view they like, that's not imposing anything. What I understood Charles to be advocating is thing like refusing government services, without a practical need to do so (like a ban on face covering in banks) on grounds of failure to adhere to a dress code. That crosses the line between having a view and imposing it on other people.
You're not allowed to wear balaclavas or motorcycle helmets in banks. Why should Muslim reactionaries get special privileges?
I don't think they should, that's what I'm saying. My point is that provided there isn't a strong practical reason like that, government shouldn't discriminate.
What is the strong practical reason to force nudists to cover up?
Arguably there's a child protection angle and possibly a hygiene one too, but I think it's mainly done out of bigotry and predjudice. Just pay the rambler bloke his benefits if he shows up at the counter, nudism isn't contagious.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
We've finally got rid of the sexist element, but what about the sectarianism?
If we got rid of the sectarianism, the Northern Irish and some Scots would say we're getting rid of one their major hobbies.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
We've finally got rid of the sexist element, but what about the sectarianism?
I particularly liked Rees-Mogg's idea for a regency for the Governorship of the Church of England if the monarch was Catholic.
If a Catholic can become monarch, he or she should have to swear that they would not be a servant of the Pope. It is troubling if the head of our state considers themselves to be under the authority of another one.
Having said that a hereditary monarchy is highly inegalitarian anyway, which is the greater problem.
Isn't there a fundamental problem for UKIP around winning Westminster seats, due to the nature of its support?
UKIP is essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner party. This kind of voter springs into existence wherever a lot of immigrants are in evidence. However, the presence of immigrants tends to cancel out the anti-immigrant sentiment electorally. So that while there will be a number of UKIPpers voting against immigrants in any given seat, the immigrants and those who empathise with them will be aware of UKIP and motivated to vote against them.
Conversely, though, in a seat that hasn't seen much immigration, they'll also have trouble winning. If there hasn't been enough immigration, nothing is generating a critical mass of anti-immigrant voters. rant areas It seems to follow that in a seat where there's been a lot of immigration they can't win, and in a seat where there hasn't been a lot of immigration they can't win.
This model predicts that UKIP would only ever be able to win on protest votes and in silly elections that don't matter. Protest voters don't care what they stand for. In trivial elections such as the euros their natural opposition can't be bothered to mobilise because the outcome doesn't actually matter.
The above model predicts that UKIP can win in the euros (both a protest vote and one that doesn't matter) and perhaps the odd Westminster by-election. They can also win council seats, because the smaller wards and the ghettoisation that multiculturalism actually produces mean there can be local pools of support large enough to return councillors.
But on this analysis, the natural limit on UKIP representation at Westminster would appear to be about 0 to 2 seats, or thereabouts; i.e. whatever marginal-ish seats become available in by-elections between GEs.
First of all, UKIP are neither anti immigrant, or anti foreigner.
Secondly you are right that where there are a majority of 1st 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, UKIP find it hard to make progress. Inner London being the prime example. If very few people have family history in an area, they dont care as much if the place is changing rapidly, because they are part of the change.
The areas where UKIP do well is where people have moved out of areas affected by mass immigraton, maybe only a couple of stops on the train away, and want to keep that area as it is. Hornchurch and Upminster where I live is a prime example, Thurrock, Basildon, basically most of West Essex, where a lot of people are from the East End, have seen what has become of it, and vote for our part of the world to stay as it is, rather than become a minority
So areas that border those affected by mass immigration are where UKIP will do best, and there are a lot more than 0-2 of them
o/t - Tories really dont get trade unions, do they? I found this comment hilariously revealing:
Conservative MP Alok Sharma said the potential for some employees to gain a financial advatage of others by joining a trade union was "extremely unfair". He said: “Employees with similar experience should be paid the same, for doing the same job, by the same employer and many will find it extremely unfair if some employees are being paid a premium just because they happen to be members of a trade union.”
Weather forecasters employed by the Canadian Meteorological Service have been banned from publicly discussing climate change. The decision has been justified on the basis that years of study of meteorology does not make a person qualified to discuss climatic events longer than a few months.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
We've finally got rid of the sexist element, but what about the sectarianism?
I particularly liked Rees-Mogg's idea for a regency for the Governorship of the Church of England if the monarch was Catholic.
I wonder though if you reverse the Act of Settlement you'd get a push to restore the descendants of the Stuart dynasty. I doubt it would get very far but I'm sure there would be a number of nerdy types with little better to do.
In surveys of England/Britain/UK's best monarchs, Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II generally dominate the top five. With a record like that, female primogeniture might be a sensible system.
If we'd had female primogeniture in 1547, Edward VI would never have become king, and the Marian tyranny would have likely been irreversible. Instead of being a fountain of liberty in the centuries thereafter, this country would, like Ireland, would have dominated by rampant priestcraft and intolerable superstition.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
We've finally got rid of the sexist element, but what about the sectarianism?
I particularly liked Rees-Mogg's idea for a regency for the Governorship of the Church of England if the monarch was Catholic.
If a Catholic can become monarch, he or she should have to swear that they would not be a servant of the Pope. It is troubling if the head of our state considers themselves to be under the authority of another one.
Having said that a hereditary monarchy is highly inegalitarian anyway, which is the greater problem.
UKIP is essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner party. This kind of voter springs into existence wherever a lot of immigrants are in evidence. However, the presence of immigrants tends to cancel out the anti-immigrant sentiment electorally. So that while there will be a number of UKIPpers voting against immigrants in any given seat, the immigrants and those who empathise with them will be aware of UKIP and motivated to vote against them.
Nope. They also do well where there is a fear of immigration and change. East Anglia is not chock-full of Johnny Foreigners, but UKIP are very strong there.
It's the Royston Vasey vote.
Have you actually been round Wisbech or Boston or King's Lynn lately? They are still very white - especially if you're used to London - but that's missing the point. The idea that the UKIP vote is about finding an acceptable way to decry the darkies at the ballot box is a mistaken one in my opinion. There's a reason Farage links immigration control to EU membership, and in places like East Anglia that will have a certain resonance.
Incidentally Norfolk's the only place I've visited where I've seen the big high street banks advertising in Polish and Lithuanian.
I have a suspicion that East Anglia may be unusual in terms of the number of immigrants who have moved into small and rural communities, rather than it being primarily associated with large urban settings. But I'm not sure how to obtain a statistical breakdown on that.
Once again, I haven't insulted anyone. I have merely described, without euphemism or favour, one of the key motives to be religious – a fear of what is coming if one fails to comply.
You think they will self-certify well? "Why are you religious?" "Um, because my mum told me to be."
It's an old trick to adopt an air of fair minded neutrality to rip it out of someone's beliefs while pretending you don't get where the offence is, and it's what you are doing.
Some people take solace in religion, some have other dogmas. If you're so great that you are above it all then well done, but try and be tolerant of things others find important however illogical you find it
I'm tolerant of it.
I just don't agree with the notion.
I strongly disagree that religion should get some kind of special dispensation. Why do you think it should?
In general, I don't have much sympathy for women who complain that they can't inherit titles. If a system is inherently inegalitarian, it's a bit rich to argue that it should be tweaked just to suit you.
UKIP is essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner party. This kind of voter springs into existence wherever a lot of immigrants are in evidence. However, the presence of immigrants tends to cancel out the anti-immigrant sentiment electorally. So that while there will be a number of UKIPpers voting against immigrants in any given seat, the immigrants and those who empathise with them will be aware of UKIP and motivated to vote against them.
Nope. They also do well where there is a fear of immigration and change. East Anglia is not chock-full of Johnny Foreigners, but UKIP are very strong there.
It's the Royston Vasey vote.
Have you actually been round Wisbech or Boston or King's Lynn lately? They are still very white - especially if you're used to London - but that's missing the point. The idea that the UKIP vote is about finding an acceptable way to decry the darkies at the ballot box is a mistaken one in my opinion. There's a reason Farage links immigration control to EU membership, and in places like East Anglia that will have a certain resonance.
Incidentally Norfolk's the only place I've visited where I've seen the big high street banks advertising in Polish and Lithuanian.
I have a suspicion that East Anglia may be unusual in terms of the number of immigrants who have moved into small and rural communities, rather than it being primarily associated with large urban settings. But I'm not sure how to obtain a statistical breakdown on that.
Immigration into Norfolk is largely EU, the estates in the market towns are becoming very European. Immigration from black and Asian minorities is less pronounced but markedly up on fifteen to twenty years ago when Norfolk was a predominately to almost exclusively white British county.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
What law ?
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
I know, but it was only changed recently.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
We've finally got rid of the sexist element, but what about the sectarianism?
I particularly liked Rees-Mogg's idea for a regency for the Governorship of the Church of England if the monarch was Catholic.
I wonder though if you reverse the Act of Settlement you'd get a push to restore the descendants of the Stuart dynasty. I doubt it would get very far but I'm sure there would be a number of nerdy types with little better to do.
Don't get JackW started on the prospect of a pretender succeeding to the throne ;-)
It does seem somewhat odd that the crown passes on a first come first serves basis now but any title given to Harry when he eventually marries will only pass to heirs male and won't at all if he only has daughters. Utterly ridiculous.
Is it more or less odd than the idea of giving the guy some kind of elevated title for having convinced someone to marry him in the first place?
To be honest it doesn't strike me as particularly odd as the bestowing of a title is in essence the way of establishing a cadet branch of the major royal house and it seems a natural point to do so.
Once again, I haven't insulted anyone. I have merely described, without euphemism or favour, one of the key motives to be religious – a fear of what is coming if one fails to comply.
You think they will self-certify well? "Why are you religious?" "Um, because my mum told me to be."
It's an old trick to adopt an air of fair minded neutrality to rip it out of someone's beliefs while pretending you don't get where the offence is, and it's what you are doing.
Some people take solace in religion, some have other dogmas. If you're so great that you are above it all then well done, but try and be tolerant of things others find important however illogical you find it
I'm tolerant of it.
I just don't agree with the notion.
I strongly disagree that religion should get some kind of special dispensation. Why do you think it should?
I didnt say anything of the sort, dont put words into my mouth which arent mine
I just dont like it when people mock others sincerely held beliefs, and atheists smart arse "I know everything, youre so silly" attitude is childish and cringeworthy.
If you are tolerant, then be tolerant and try to be respectful of others withdifferent views to your own
It does seem somewhat odd that the crown passes on a first come first serves basis now but any title given to Harry when he eventually marries will only pass to heirs male and won't at all if he only has daughters. Utterly ridiculous.
Is it more or less odd than the idea of giving the guy some kind of elevated title for having convinced someone to marry him in the first place?
To be honest it doesn't strike me as particularly odd as the bestowing of a title is in essence the way of establishing a cadet branch of the major royal house and it seems a natural point to do so.
I suppose I was trying to get at the point Sean Fear later made more clearly. Complaining about one aspect of discrimination in an inherently inegalitarian system seems to me to be missing the bigger picture.
We've finally got rid of the sexist element, but what about the sectarianism?
Section two of the 2013 Act does remove the prohibition on the sovereign or those in the line of succession marrying papists. Nevertheless, it would be quite wrong to have a papist as head of the Church of England, while the church is established. Moreover, even supposing disestablishment occurred, many would find it questionable if someone who believed that the pope of Rome can depose the monarch of England and overrule judgments of Her courts of justice, were Head of State.
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
I was thinking more of the law of Primogeniture that determines our Head of State.
The irony is that despite male primogeniture, for 129 of the last 180 years, our sovereign has been a woman. In any event, male primogeniture will be abolished when section 1 of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 comes into force.
In surveys of England/Britain/UK's best monarchs, Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II generally dominate the top five. With a record like that, female primogeniture might be a sensible system.
You say the Elizabeths and Victoria, I say Empress Maude, Mary I, Mary as in William and Mary, and Anne. Whilst those you quote would be reckoned to be among the top performers the rest of the pack don't look too good. For our Scottish friends I'd also include Mary Queen of Scots as another one who is well down the field in the competence and capability stakes.
Perhaps female primogeniture may not be such a good thing. There have been good and bad of both genders probably best to leave it to God and the machinations of the ruling class as the new law will.
It does seem somewhat odd that the crown passes on a first come first serves basis now but any title given to Harry when he eventually marries will only pass to heirs male and won't at all if he only has daughters. Utterly ridiculous.
Is it more or less odd than the idea of giving the guy some kind of elevated title for having convinced someone to marry him in the first place?
To be honest it doesn't strike me as particularly odd as the bestowing of a title is in essence the way of establishing a cadet branch of the major royal house and it seems a natural point to do so.
I suppose I was trying to get at the point Sean Fear later made more clearly. Complaining about one aspect of discrimination in an inherently inegalitarian system seems to me to be missing the bigger picture.
Possibly, but frankly I'd far prefer to have the situation we have than the blandness of an alternative.
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
The oath prescribed by the Act of Supremacy of 1558 should be required, suitably modified:
“I A.B. do utterly testify and declare in my Conscience, That the Queen's Highness is the only Supream Governor of this Realm, and of all other her Highness Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes, as Temporal; and that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preheminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign Jurisdictions, Powers, Superiorities and Authorities, and do promise, that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Queen's Highness, her Heirs and lawful Successors, and to my Power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Preheminences, Privileges and Authorities granted or belonging to the Queen's Highness, her Heirs and Successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So help me God, and by the Contents of this Book.”
@Neil raises the point about a President-elect of the United States of America who is a Roman Catholic. The only reason that oath is as it is, is because it is prescribed by the Constitution. A comparison with the oath the Vice President is obliged to take, which was specifically designed with Romanism in mind, is instructive.
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
It would be simpler to restrict the franchise to proven atheists.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
Protestantism is compatible with a secular state. Note Christ's declaration to Pontius Pilate that "my kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36), and the opening verses of Romans 13:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
In surveys of England/Britain/UK's best monarchs, Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II generally dominate the top five. With a record like that, female primogeniture might be a sensible system.
If we'd had female primogeniture in 1547, Edward VI would never have become king, and the Marian tyranny would have likely been irreversible. Instead of being a fountain of liberty in the centuries thereafter, this country would, like Ireland, would have dominated by rampant priestcraft and intolerable superstition.
Assuming Mary still died without issue why would the succession have changed? I suppose you could argue that without Edward's brief reign the forces of protestantism would not have grown and so there would have been no, or at least much, pressure on Elizabeth to find a middle way. However, is that not to ignore Elizabeth's own preferences and education. Her lack of desire to make "windows into other men's souls" has always struck me as something that came from herself and not political necessity.
Of course if Mary had had a child that survived, we would probably all now be speaking Spanish and ending up like Ireland would have been a good result.
It does seem somewhat odd that the crown passes on a first come first serves basis now but any title given to Harry when he eventually marries will only pass to heirs male and won't at all if he only has daughters. Utterly ridiculous.
Is it more or less odd than the idea of giving the guy some kind of elevated title for having convinced someone to marry him in the first place?
To be honest it doesn't strike me as particularly odd as the bestowing of a title is in essence the way of establishing a cadet branch of the major royal house and it seems a natural point to do so.
I suppose I was trying to get at the point Sean Fear later made more clearly. Complaining about one aspect of discrimination in an inherently inegalitarian system seems to me to be missing the bigger picture.
Possibly, but frankly I'd far prefer to have the situation we have than the blandness of an alternative.
Oh, in general I think titles and heraldry (real titles, not life peerages) are just a bit of harmless fun.
In surveys of England/Britain/UK's best monarchs, Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II generally dominate the top five. With a record like that, female primogeniture might be a sensible system.
If we'd had female primogeniture in 1547, Edward VI would never have become king, and the Marian tyranny would have likely been irreversible. Instead of being a fountain of liberty in the centuries thereafter, this country would, like Ireland, would have dominated by rampant priestcraft and intolerable superstition.
Assuming Mary still died without issue why would the succession have changed? I suppose you could argue that without Edward's brief reign the forces of protestantism would not have grown and so there would have been no, or at least much, pressure on Elizabeth to find a middle way. However, is that not to ignore Elizabeth's own preferences and education. Her lack of desire to make "windows into other men's souls" has always struck me as something that came from herself and not political necessity.
Of course if Mary had had a child that survived, we would probably all now be speaking Spanish and ending up like Ireland would have been a good result.
We could have also ended up as part of the Holy Roman Empire if her husband hadn't been as close to Spain as he was.
UKIP is essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner party. This kind of voter springs into existence wherever a lot of immigrants are in evidence. However, the presence of immigrants tends to cancel out the anti-immigrant sentiment electorally. So that while there will be a number of UKIPpers voting against immigrants in any given seat, the immigrants and those who empathise with them will be aware of UKIP and motivated to vote against them.
Nope. They also do well where there is a fear of immigration and change. East Anglia is not chock-full of Johnny Foreigners, but UKIP are very strong there.
It's the Royston Vasey vote.
Have you actually been round Wisbech or Boston or King's Lynn lately? They are still very white - especially if you're used to London - but that's missing the point. The idea that the UKIP vote is about finding an acceptable way to decry the darkies at the ballot box is a mistaken one in my opinion. There's a reason Farage links immigration control to EU membership, and in places like East Anglia that will have a certain resonance.
Incidentally Norfolk's the only place I've visited where I've seen the big high street banks advertising in Polish and Lithuanian.
I have a suspicion that East Anglia may be unusual in terms of the number of immigrants who have moved into small and rural communities, rather than it being primarily associated with large urban settings. But I'm not sure how to obtain a statistical breakdown on that.
If I'm off-base with my East Anglian comment, then I apologise. I do see it in my Parent's town in Cumbria, though. Tiny, tiny immigrant community, but going from zero to 100 over 5 years has spooked a lot of people, especially after a lifetime of ethnic homogeneity. The Cons are still going to walk the election, but the Kippers are pretty popular, especially amongst the over-50's.
Ironically, there's almost universal approval about the polish builders and plumbers, who are both cheaper and better than the home-grown tradesmen!
That has always been my argument against a catholic being head of State. (I mean a devout practicing one as opposed to one who is Catholic by birth not practice).
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
Should we force Protestants who become Head of State to swear that they will prioritise the laws of the land over the text of the bible? I would hate to see them in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to our parliamentary democracy and fidelity to the words of their God.
The wonderful thing about British religiosity is that we don't take it seriously. British persons of faith tend to be faintly embarrassed by it all and it's not something that tends to detract from more serious pursuits. I think it's why organisations that try to ape American fundamentalism tend to be treated with ice cold disdain by most people of faith. I always like the description of the difference between us and the Americans as Brits being possessed of an established church but no religion and Americans having plenty of religion but no established church.
Comments
Ask genuine swing voters what determines their vote and you'd find a different response.
Someone tell Randy Lerner
Here's the Forbes valuation and the context of American Sports teams
Ballmer’s offer was well over the reported value of the Clippers, which Forbes in January estimated to be about $575 million.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/sterling-offered-2b-ex-microsoft-big-sell-clippers-article-1.1810898#ixzz33BrHkVCg
Take that blunder, and coming below Southam "Romney" Observer, and it is clearly a sign that today is not my day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Gillan
http://survation.com/newark-by-election-poll-survation-the-sun/
I think that's the usual Survation method: the only unusual feature is that they named the candidates.
As it appears you are an expert in/on Harems. How many ladies make a harem and what upper age limit would you propose?
Ladbrokes Politics @LadPolitics · May 24
@MSmithsonPB @chrisbrooke @PhilRodgers we've taken our seat markets down for a bit during locals/euros/Ashcroft. Need some reassessing.
UKIP is essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner party. This kind of voter springs into existence wherever a lot of immigrants are in evidence. However, the presence of immigrants tends to cancel out the anti-immigrant sentiment electorally. So that while there will be a number of UKIPpers voting against immigrants in any given seat, the immigrants and those who empathise with them will be aware of UKIP and motivated to vote against them.
Conversely, though, in a seat that hasn't seen much immigration, they'll also have trouble winning. If there hasn't been enough immigration, nothing is generating a critical mass of anti-immigrant voters.
It seems to follow that in a seat where there's been a lot of immigration they can't win, and in a seat where there hasn't been a lot of immigration they can't win.
This model predicts that UKIP would only ever be able to win on protest votes and in silly elections that don't matter. Protest voters don't care what they stand for. In trivial elections such as the euros their natural opposition can't be bothered to mobilise because the outcome doesn't actually matter.
The above model predicts that UKIP can win in the euros (both a protest vote and one that doesn't matter) and perhaps the odd Westminster by-election. They can also win council seats, because the smaller wards and the ghettoisation that multiculturalism actually produces mean there can be local pools of support large enough to return councillors.
But on this analysis, the natural limit on UKIP representation at Westminster would appear to be about 0 to 2 seats, or thereabouts; i.e. whatever marginal-ish seats become available in by-elections between GEs.
I'd add the Oakeshott polls to that mix too.
It's the Royston Vasey vote.
We want this day to fall much, much earlier in the future. That means tax cuts and a radical simplification of the tax system. But that can only happen if politicians stop spending so much of our cash - they must launch a serious War on Waste to make sure they get value from every single penny of taxpayers’ money."
Tax Payers Alliance
It was changed. If George was Georgina, it would still be in line to become the Queen of England.
One thing I find ludicrous about Christianity is that they have this holy book which is supposedly the text to guide their lives and they then claim half of it doesn't count (the half that makes them look bad)
The Bible is a book filled with threats and prohibitions.
My point was it was only changed recently, to ban people from this country because they might not adhere to equality of the sexes, might seem a bit harsh, that only last year we had such a law.
(He damn-near emptied my box of them in a one-hour meeting... Grrr!)
He's a top lad, here's him on the Alan Carr show
(contains NSFW language)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1NS97_lHi8
If nudists looked like Cheryl Cole and Tom Hiddleston, the laws would be abolished.
If we got rid of the sectarianism, the Northern Irish and some Scots would say we're getting rid of one their major hobbies.
Having said that a hereditary monarchy is highly inegalitarian anyway, which is the greater problem.
Secondly you are right that where there are a majority of 1st 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants, UKIP find it hard to make progress. Inner London being the prime example. If very few people have family history in an area, they dont care as much if the place is changing rapidly, because they are part of the change.
The areas where UKIP do well is where people have moved out of areas affected by mass immigraton, maybe only a couple of stops on the train away, and want to keep that area as it is. Hornchurch and Upminster where I live is a prime example, Thurrock, Basildon, basically most of West Essex, where a lot of people are from the East End, have seen what has become of it, and vote for our part of the world to stay as it is, rather than become a minority
So areas that border those affected by mass immigration are where UKIP will do best, and there are a lot more than 0-2 of them
Conservative MP Alok Sharma said the potential for some employees to gain a financial advatage of others by joining a trade union was "extremely unfair".
He said: “Employees with similar experience should be paid the same, for doing the same job, by the same employer and many will find it extremely unfair if some employees are being paid a premium just because they happen to be members of a trade union.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10860017/Union-members-4000-a-year-better-off-government-report-suggests.html
A Portsmouth South By-Election would be VERY interesting right now.
I'm sticking by my 1500 majority prediction for Newark, with LD -> Lab, Lab -> UKIP, Con -> UKIP swings
And bloody Vanilla acting up again *shakes fist*
Incidentally Norfolk's the only place I've visited where I've seen the big high street banks advertising in Polish and Lithuanian.
I have a suspicion that East Anglia may be unusual in terms of the number of immigrants who have moved into small and rural communities, rather than it being primarily associated with large urban settings. But I'm not sure how to obtain a statistical breakdown on that.
I just don't agree with the notion.
I strongly disagree that religion should get some kind of special dispensation. Why do you think it should?
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/muslims-dont-like-dogs-dont-walk-them-here-police-probe-sign-in-east-london-park-9458867.html
"Police were today investigating a sign telling pet owners to stay out of an east London park because "Muslims do not like dogs".
The warning, in Bartlett Park, Poplar, said: "Do not walk your dog here! Muslims do not like dogs. This is an Islamic area now.""
Immigration from black and Asian minorities is less pronounced but markedly up on fifteen to twenty years ago when Norfolk was a predominately to almost exclusively white British county.
I just dont like it when people mock others sincerely held beliefs, and atheists smart arse "I know everything, youre so silly" attitude is childish and cringeworthy.
If you are tolerant, then be tolerant and try to be respectful of others withdifferent views to your own
Catholic's still regard the Pope as God's representative on earth, even with the later Vatican tweaks. As such I do not believe that they should be in a position where they have to choose between fidelity to the crown and fidelity to their God. We fought a civil war over this issue and the right side won.
I can do a thread on it, and think of all the Five Star references
It's simply a matter of the consistent application of good manners.
great - very great - super or super great ?
It's impossible to respond negatively.
Is this mining for information or just a comfort blanket ?
Perhaps female primogeniture may not be such a good thing. There have been good and bad of both genders probably best to leave it to God and the machinations of the ruling class as the new law will.
UKIP 27.5 Labour 27 Conservative 24 Green 8 Lib Dem 8 AIFE 1.5 (If I remember them correctly) then you'd have finished second."
and won ......... absolutely zilch!
Of course if Mary had had a child that survived, we would probably all now be speaking Spanish and ending up like Ireland would have been a good result.
Ironically, there's almost universal approval about the polish builders and plumbers, who are both cheaper and better than the home-grown tradesmen!