Still on that ultra low polling for the LibDems ...... is there any remaining prospect of Uncle Vince being drafted in to hold the fort at the forthcoming GE - available at 8/1 from Paddy Power - or are they now stuck with Clegg come what may?
[edit] Morning all.
Is there any polling evidence to suggest replacing Clegg with Cable would improve the LD's lot prior to GE2015? - If not, then Clegg is safe, er until further notice.
Any odds on Charles Kennedy as next LibDem leader? In the event of the LibDems being on 6% at the GE, he'd be one of about three MPs.
Sorry, not a scobby! - you say only about three left standing at 6%, eek, looking on the bright side however, it will certainly make choosing a new party leader a little easier..!
Hmm... Did the second question taint the answer to the first?
So far as the second question is concerned I said yesterday and on many previous occasions that the only risk factor I still see for No Thanks is a consistent tory lead in the opinion polls and this backs this up.
The legends and pure fantasy that SLAB managed to create around the tories in general and Thatcher in particular has been a very effective electoral weapon for them but there is a price to be paid for everything. Labour supporters are the key swing group and they have been indoctrinated with an unreasoning hatred of tories that is hard to overstate.
Will SLAB be able to deliver its supporters if the tories had, say, a 5% lead by September? That is the risk and why I have consistently said this is not all over.
Very sensible posting.
Serious question please - how can a second question taint the first if the first has already been asked and answered?
I don't know enough about how the questioning was done but if I was presented with a sheet of paper with 2 or more questions on it I would certainly have a quick skim through the subsequent questions before answering the first. If it was someone with a clipboard then maybe the same issue would not arise. I simply don't know.
It was a survation online poll.
So each question would appear on one screen, when you've completed one question, you press enter, and it takes you to the next question, and IIRC there's no option to go back.
@SeanF - "SLAB were very successful in propagating the argument that Conservative government in Scotland was somehow illegitimate, because the Conservatives only won a minority of seats there. That argument has now come back to bite them on the arse."
But they were successful because the Tories caused themselves to be immensely unpopular. Such a message would not have worked if people had not been willing to hear it.
That is so. But, it now makes it very difficult for Labour to make a convincing argument for the Union. After all, Labour has been outpolled by the SNP since 2007. They can make the argument that they speak for Scotland more effectively than SLAB.
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
Andy Murray told the Sunday Times last weekend he didn't like Salmond waving the flag.
@SeanF - "SLAB were very successful in propagating the argument that Conservative government in Scotland was somehow illegitimate, because the Conservatives only won a minority of seats there. That argument has now come back to bite them on the arse."
But they were successful because the Tories caused themselves to be immensely unpopular. Such a message would not have worked if people had not been willing to hear it.
But the Tories are an English party. We all know that.
Labour's monomania about the Tories? In Scotland, at a time when they are positively in bed with the Tories? It's the SNP Labour have an absolute raving obsession with, vide Ms Lamont's speech at the last SLAB conference. It's not the Tories who evicted them from their comfortable position in the devolution parliament and administration.
I've said before - and will say again now - that the great reason why we are where we are in the runp to indyref is not down to the Scottish bits of the Labour Party, but the way in which the Tories allowed themselves to lose Scotland from the 1950s onwards.
How far Labour were the cause, and how far the beneficiaries expanding into the vacuum, is nother matter and I've been reading your discussion with interest.
Spot on.
What outsiders rarely grasp about SLAB is that it is a machine. A political machine. Nothing more. Nothing less. At certain points in modern history it has been terrifyingly effective at winning elections, which is really its sole cohesive function. And how it won elections never bothered it in the slightest, hence the ruthless use of the Tory Demonisation tool by John Smith, Robin Cook, Gordon Brown, Donald Dewar & Co. That demonising the Tories might risk the Union in the long term was irrelevant for those men: what mattered was winning MPs in 83, 87, 92, 97 etc etc.
The key, tragic mistake made by the Tories was made an awful long time ago. 1965 to be precise, when the once-proud Unionist Party simply gave up and handed control, lock stock and barrel to the English Conservative Party. Only Murdo Fraser MSP seems to understand their own suicidal path, and he has very effectively been sidelined by Cameron.
I agree with that Stuart. If the tories are to make a proper recovery in Scotland (independent or otherwise) they must find a distinctive Scottish voice and have the courage to assert it, even if it results in disagreements with the party south of the border. A CDU/CSU association would be ideal.
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
He captained the Scottish national tennis team which beat the English national tennis team. Couple of years in a row IIRC.
Tennis is a Commonwealth sport, and Murray is eligible for Scottish selection. Last time round he chose to compete in China rather than India, which was wise, as he won that tournament. Tennis is omitted from the Glasgow schedule, as are many other Commonwealth sports.
A reminder, if one were needed, of how toxic Mrs Thatcher's treatment of Scotland made her party north of the border, which had up till then consistently returned a couple of dozen Conservative MPs rather than its current one or none.
The Scottish Conservative decline both pre-dates, and post-dates Thatcher. The Party went from 50% of the vote in 1955 to 31% in 1979. It went from 26% in 1992, to 15% now.
Presumably this is because Conservative-leaning voters in Scotland would tend to leave.
Should Scotland actually vote Yes Salmond will need a wall to keep them in.
This is just depressing. I can respect those who are unionist or separatist, but to make the decision based on one election result is bloody stupid.
Also, photo-bombing is acceptable behaviour if you're a marmoset. If you're a first minister, it just makes you look like an arse.
Unfortunately few of you in England understand the sheer hatred of a great many of the Central Belt Labour types towards the Tory Party. Gordon Brown is typical of them. These are the people the YESNP is reaching out to in the huge housing estates Labour built on the edge of Glasgow and Edinburgh and in the new towns started in 1948.
A self-evident lack of understanding of Scottish politics, culture and society rarely stops PBers commenting at length on those topics.
If Easterross is right, though, the patriotic duty of the English football team is to get knocked out as soon as possible. Should we, by some miracle, win the thing that would be the end of the Union.
If that really is true, though, there is no real Union so it would be better for all sides if it came to an end, however the England team performs.
Labour's monomania about the Tories? In Scotland, at a time when they are positively in bed with the Tories? It's the SNP Labour have an absolute raving obsession with, vide Ms Lamont's speech at the last SLAB conference. It's not the Tories who evicted them from their comfortable position in the devolution parliament and administration.
I've said before - and will say again now - that the great reason why we are where we are in the runp to indyref is not down to the Scottish bits of the Labour Party, but the way in which the Tories allowed themselves to lose Scotland from the 1950s onwards.
How far Labour were the cause, and how far the beneficiaries expanding into the vacuum, is nother matter and I've been reading your discussion with interest.
Spot on.
What outsiders rarely grasp about SLAB is that it is a machine. A political machine. Nothing more. Nothing less. At certain points in modern history it has been terrifyingly effective at winning elections, which is really its sole cohesive function. And how it won elections never bothered it in the slightest, hence the ruthless use of the Tory Demonisation tool by John Smith, Robin Cook, Gordon Brown, Donald Dewar & Co. That demonising the Tories might risk the Union in the long term was irrelevant for those men: what mattered was winning MPs in 83, 87, 92, 97 etc etc.
The key, tragic mistake made by the Tories was made an awful long time ago. 1965 to be precise, when the once-proud Unionist Party simply gave up and handed control, lock stock and barrel to the English Conservative Party. Only Murdo Fraser MSP seems to understand their own suicidal path, and he has very effectively been sidelined by Cameron.
I agree with that Stuart. If the tories are to make a proper recovery in Scotland (independent or otherwise) they must find a distinctive Scottish voice and have the courage to assert it, even if it results in disagreements with the party south of the border. A CDU/CSU association would be ideal.
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
@SeanF - "SLAB were very successful in propagating the argument that Conservative government in Scotland was somehow illegitimate, because the Conservatives only won a minority of seats there. That argument has now come back to bite them on the arse."
But they were successful because the Tories caused themselves to be immensely unpopular. Such a message would not have worked if people had not been willing to hear it.
That is so. But, it now makes it very difficult for Labour to make a convincing argument for the Union. After all, Labour has been outpolled by the SNP since 2007. They can make the argument that they speak for Scotland more effectively than SLAB.
Absolutely. But that was never my point. I was taking issue with the notion that the Tories in Scotland are victims of dastardly Labour tactics and have no responsibility for their toxicity.
Morning all and on thread, as I have said for over a year, this summer presents the "Perfect Storm" for Eck and the YESNP.
It started a fortnight ago with the Tories outperforming expectations in the Euro and Local elections. It continued last week with the easy Tory hold in Newark. This week the English media has gone into overdrive promoting a 2nd rate football team which few expect to get beyond the group stage and almost none beyond the quarter finals. We now have many in the media and political commentariat expecting the Tories to get back in next year. Over the next fortnight we have the hype surrounding Bannockburn 2014 Next month we have the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, today they announce the largest Scottish team ever, 100 more athletes than in Manchester Then we have the Ryder Cup By August/September is it not likely that the re-election of a Westminster Tory government will be the main political story..........
just in time for Eck to say, vote YES on 18th September and avoid 5 more years of Tory rule from London.
Last week I thought that NO might just win but now I am tipping back into expecting a narrow YES. Worryingly for the future of Scotland it is getting really nasty as evidenced by the spat over Eck's spad and his disgraceful slur on the Labour wifie.
Once again you are project what's in your head, not reality.
The media are not over promoting England at all. The hype has been conspicuous in its absence this year.
You are conflating your own prejudices with actuality.
so this morning's front page of The Sun in England is a figment of my imagination plus all the garbage I have heard this week on BBC News and SKY News which I listen to/watch around 6 hrs a day, every day.
A reminder, if one were needed, of how toxic Mrs Thatcher's treatment of Scotland made her party north of the border, which had up till then consistently returned a couple of dozen Conservative MPs rather than its current one or none.
The Scottish Conservative decline both pre-dates, and post-dates Thatcher. The Party went from 50% of the vote in 1955 to 31% in 1979. It went from 26% in 1992, to 15% now.
Presumably this is because Conservative-leaning voters in Scotland would tend to leave.
Should Scotland actually vote Yes Salmond will need a wall to keep them in.
In the same way that Andrew Lloyd Webber and Phil Collins honoured their threat to leave the UK if Labour got in?
Hmm... Did the second question taint the answer to the first?
So far as the second question is concerned I said yesterday and on many previous occasions that the only risk factor I still see for No Thanks is a consistent tory lead in the opinion polls and this backs this up.
The legends and pure fantasy that SLAB managed to create around the tories in general and Thatcher in particular has been a very effective electoral weapon for them but there is a price to be paid for everything. Labour supporters are the key swing group and they have been indoctrinated with an unreasoning hatred of tories that is hard to overstate.
Will SLAB be able to deliver its supporters if the tories had, say, a 5% lead by September? That is the risk and why I have consistently said this is not all over.
Very sensible posting.
Serious question please - how can a second question taint the first if the first has already been asked and answered?
I don't know enough about how the questioning was done but if I was presented with a sheet of paper with 2 or more questions on it I would certainly have a quick skim through the subsequent questions before answering the first. If it was someone with a clipboard then maybe the same issue would not arise. I simply don't know.
Respondents are NEVER "presented with a sheet of paper". In online interviews you answer each question one at a time before the next question appears, and it is impossible to go back (no "Back" button is ever present). In telephone interviews, the respondents can obviously not see what is coming next. In face to face it is only the interviewer who can see the computer screen, and even then it is the same as Online: one question appears at a time.
Out of interest, is there Commonwealth Games fever in Scotland? I don't detect much down here. It's never really been that big a deal, has it?
In the Herald (dunno about the tabloids) - fairly mild. Not negligible at all but not all over the papers. They've run out of their contingency budget but no panic alarms yet. Apart from the rather silly scheme to demolish high rise flats as part of the opening, most coverage is the obligatory snap of where the Baton is at now.
Interestingly, it seems less of a political football than one might think. It is obviously a Labour (and Glasgow Labour) project commenced when Labour were in power at Holyrood, but now the SNP are in charge nationally, so both Glasgow Labour and the SNP have an interest in it going well. My impression is that the tensions have tended to be between Glasgow Labour, under Mr Mathieson, and the local Trots/Greens/Socialists (e.g. when people were cleared for the benefit of le grand projet).
The other interesting thing is Mr Cameron coming up here to launch the commemoration of the Great War as part of this. This may seem odd as the UK Gmt has not contributed significantly, in contrast to Scotland and the London Olympics, but it is logical enough as that is where the Commonwealth heads of state will be at the relevant time. However, Glasgow is an "interesting" place for a Tory to do so because of the wartime and early postwar problems, and the possible explicit links with the indyref whuch Mr C may make. Will be interesting.
Hmm... Did the second question taint the answer to the first?
So far as the second question is concerned I said yesterday and on many previous occasions that the only risk factor I still see for No Thanks is a consistent tory lead in the opinion polls and this backs this up.
The legends and pure fantasy that SLAB managed to create around the tories in general and Thatcher in particular has been a very effective electoral weapon for them but there is a price to be paid for everything. Labour supporters are the key swing group and they have been indoctrinated with an unreasoning hatred of tories that is hard to overstate.
Will SLAB be able to deliver its supporters if the tories had, say, a 5% lead by September? That is the risk and why I have consistently said this is not all over.
Very sensible posting.
Serious question please - how can a second question taint the first if the first has already been asked and answered?
I don't know enough about how the questioning was done but if I was presented with a sheet of paper with 2 or more questions on it I would certainly have a quick skim through the subsequent questions before answering the first. If it was someone with a clipboard then maybe the same issue would not arise. I simply don't know.
Respondents are NEVER "presented with a sheet of paper". In online interviews you answer each question one at a time before the next question appears, and it is impossible to go back (no "Back" button is ever present). In telephone interviews, the respondents can obviously not see what is coming next. In face to face it is only the interviewer who can see the computer screen, and even then it is the same as Online: one question appears at a time.
Fair enough Stuart. I have never agreed to be polled myself.
A reminder, if one were needed, of how toxic Mrs Thatcher's treatment of Scotland made her party north of the border, which had up till then consistently returned a couple of dozen Conservative MPs rather than its current one or none.
The Scottish Conservative decline both pre-dates, and post-dates Thatcher. The Party went from 50% of the vote in 1955 to 31% in 1979. It went from 26% in 1992, to 15% now.
Presumably this is because Conservative-leaning voters in Scotland would tend to leave.
Should Scotland actually vote Yes Salmond will need a wall to keep them in.
In the same way that Andrew Lloyd Webber and Phil Collins honoured their threat to leave the UK if Labour got in?
You could actually compile an extremely long list of similar daft threats.
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
My argument with you Socrates is that you present the whole issue as Lefties v the rest, when in fact - as the Pearson article makes clear - this is something that has been ignored for decades. Labour dismissed the issue because they needed votes, the Tories ignored it because they did not need them.
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
Andy Murray told the Sunday Times last weekend he didn't like Salmond waving the flag.
So what? I'm not surprised given the media hysteria it caused. If it had passed without comment from the Greater Englanders I suspect Murray wouldn't have minded. Who can forget the hoo-ha when the guy admitted he supported England's opponents at football? As England are Scotland's arch rivals fair enough. Yet the guy got lambasted for it. I say fair play to him, but he is clearly sore from the experience.
Still on that ultra low polling for the LibDems ...... is there any remaining prospect of Uncle Vince being drafted in to hold the fort at the forthcoming GE - available at 8/1 from Paddy Power - or are they now stuck with Clegg come what may?
[edit] Morning all.
Is there any polling evidence to suggest replacing Clegg with Cable would improve the LD's lot prior to GE2015? - If not, then Clegg is safe, er until further notice.
Any odds on Charles Kennedy as next LibDem leader? In the event of the LibDems being on 6% at the GE, he'd be one of about three MPs.
Yes ....... 50/1 available from Hills, etc. Btw is your real name Martin Day by any chance?
LOL!
Personally, I think the Libs will - as they did in 2010, 2005, 2001 and 1997 - get around the same share at the General that they have done in the Locals.
This would put them on about 12-14% at the General Election (I would suspect the lower end) - and I reckon around 25-35 seats.
However, if you believe LibDemaggedon (i.e. 6-7% share at the GE) then maybe the cheapest way is to bet on Charles Kennedy to be leader.
If the LibDems lose 75% of their vote, then Tim Farron will not be in the HoC; nor will Vince Cable, Ed Davey, Danny Alexander, Jo Swinson, Jeremy Browne or Norman Lamb. In fact, there will be very few seats (certainly less than half a dozen) that they will keep. Charles Kennedy is one of the few people who would remain an MP. And he is still an ambitious man; he is (I believe) now sober; and he led the LibDems to notable successes in the past.
I think 50-1 and up is a good hedge for the bets that I laid isam :-)
In such circumstances, I suppose the LibDems could select a peer from their ranks as the next party leader. No prizes for guessing who that might be and no, I'm not referring to the by then newly-enobled Lord Clegg of Hallam.
Morning all and on thread, as I have said for over a year, this summer presents the "Perfect Storm" for Eck and the YESNP.
It started a fortnight ago with the Tories outperforming expectations in the Euro and Local elections. It continued last week with the easy Tory hold in Newark. This week the English media has gone into overdrive promoting a 2nd rate football team which few expect to get beyond the group stage and almost none beyond the quarter finals. We now have many in the media and political commentariat expecting the Tories to get back in next year. Over the next fortnight we have the hype surrounding Bannockburn 2014 Next month we have the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, today they announce the largest Scottish team ever, 100 more athletes than in Manchester Then we have the Ryder Cup By August/September is it not likely that the re-election of a Westminster Tory government will be the main political story..........
just in time for Eck to say, vote YES on 18th September and avoid 5 more years of Tory rule from London.
Last week I thought that NO might just win but now I am tipping back into expecting a narrow YES. Worryingly for the future of Scotland it is getting really nasty as evidenced by the spat over Eck's spad and his disgraceful slur on the Labour wifie.
Once again you are project what's in your head, not reality.
The media are not over promoting England at all. The hype has been conspicuous in its absence this year.
You are conflating your own prejudices with actuality.
so this morning's front page of The Sun in England is a figment of my imagination plus all the garbage I have heard this week on BBC News and SKY News which I listen to/watch around 6 hrs a day, every day.
I'm sure he can stick up for himself, but I've never considered Easterross to be anti-English and I've been lurking (and sporadically posting) here since 2006.
A reminder, if one were needed, of how toxic Mrs Thatcher's treatment of Scotland made her party north of the border, which had up till then consistently returned a couple of dozen Conservative MPs rather than its current one or none.
The Scottish Conservative decline both pre-dates, and post-dates Thatcher. The Party went from 50% of the vote in 1955 to 31% in 1979. It went from 26% in 1992, to 15% now.
Presumably this is because Conservative-leaning voters in Scotland would tend to leave.
Should Scotland actually vote Yes Salmond will need a wall to keep them in.
In the same way that Andrew Lloyd Webber and Phil Collins honoured their threat to leave the UK if Labour got in?
You could actually compile an extremely long list of similar daft threats.
I think Collins did in fact emigrate, like you did. It's probably New Labour's finest achievement.
A reminder, if one were needed, of how toxic Mrs Thatcher's treatment of Scotland made her party north of the border, which had up till then consistently returned a couple of dozen Conservative MPs rather than its current one or none.
The Scottish Conservative decline both pre-dates, and post-dates Thatcher. The Party went from 50% of the vote in 1955 to 31% in 1979. It went from 26% in 1992, to 15% now.
Presumably this is because Conservative-leaning voters in Scotland would tend to leave.
Should Scotland actually vote Yes Salmond will need a wall to keep them in.
In the same way that Andrew Lloyd Webber and Phil Collins honoured their threat to leave the UK if Labour got in?
If Easterross is right, though, the patriotic duty of the English football team is to get knocked out as soon as possible. Should we, by some miracle, win the thing that would be the end of the Union.
If that really is true, though, there is no real Union so it would be better for all sides if it came to an end, however the England team performs.
Why is it "the patriotic duty of the English football team is to get knocked out as soon as possible"? If anybody said that about the Brazilian, French or Australian teams they would be considered a weirdo, but in England it is considered to be acceptable to want your own team to lose.
English self-hatred is one of the strangest aspects of modern European society.
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
Just get rid of faith teaching in any school that receives state funding. No more skirting around the issue.
Morning all and on thread, as I have said for over a year, this summer presents the "Perfect Storm" for Eck and the YESNP.
It started a fortnight ago with the Tories outperforming expectations in the Euro and Local elections. It continued last week with the easy Tory hold in Newark. This week the English media has gone into overdrive promoting a 2nd rate football team which few expect to get beyond the group stage and almost none beyond the quarter finals. We now have many in the media and political commentariat expecting the Tories to get back in next year. Over the next fortnight we have the hype surrounding Bannockburn 2014 Next month we have the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, today they announce the largest Scottish team ever, 100 more athletes than in Manchester Then we have the Ryder Cup By August/September is it not likely that the re-election of a Westminster Tory government will be the main political story..........
just in time for Eck to say, vote YES on 18th September and avoid 5 more years of Tory rule from London.
Last week I thought that NO might just win but now I am tipping back into expecting a narrow YES. Worryingly for the future of Scotland it is getting really nasty as evidenced by the spat over Eck's spad and his disgraceful slur on the Labour wifie.
Once again you are project what's in your head, not reality.
The media are not over promoting England at all. The hype has been conspicuous in its absence this year.
You are conflating your own prejudices with actuality.
so this morning's front page of The Sun in England is a figment of my imagination plus all the garbage I have heard this week on BBC News and SKY News which I listen to/watch around 6 hrs a day, every day.
Are you seriously suggesting that were Scotland to be playing in the World Cup Scottish newspapers would not be making that a big story? The tournament is on the front pages of every newspaper in every country that has a team in Brazil - even the US and Japan. In the same way, were Scotland to be there it would be covered on all the TV channels - just as it always was in the past.
If Easterross is right, though, the patriotic duty of the English football team is to get knocked out as soon as possible. Should we, by some miracle, win the thing that would be the end of the Union.
If that really is true, though, there is no real Union so it would be better for all sides if it came to an end, however the England team performs.
Why is it "the patriotic duty of the English football team is to get knocked out as soon as possible"? If anybody said that about the Brazilian, French or Australian teams they would be considered a weirdo, but in England it is considered to be acceptable to want your own team to lose.
English self-hatred is one of the strangest aspects of modern European society.
For one who purports to be a unionist, @Easterross is incredibly anti English.
By contrast, I find many Nats on here (Malc excepted!) such as Stuart very respectful to the idea of England and Englishness.
Funny old world.
To be fair to Easterross, he does not give the impression of liking that many Scots either!
Untrue. He comes across as a fine, friendly and knowledgable chap, fully a part of his own community and environment. If only that could be said about more Tories!
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
My argument with you Socrates is that you present the whole issue as Lefties v the rest, when in fact - as the Pearson article makes clear - this is something that has been ignored for decades. Labour dismissed the issue because they needed votes, the Tories ignored it because they did not need them.
I think the Tories in times gone by ignored it because they were fearful of the racist card being played against them by the Left. As they were right to fear - you just need to look at how the pot has been stirred against UKIP in the last few months. (And in that case I have been particularly critical of the Tories for indulging in the old left-wing trick now that it suits them.)
I am also commenting now. The right is now all on the same page on this, while it is the left that prefers to either make fun of the drive for "British values", or complain that "Britishness" is exclusive, rather than acknowledge the elephant in the room. In fact, I find the latter claim particularly bizarre, given that for years they've been insisting that these immigrant groups are as British as the rest of us. But now the word "British" is supposed to be repellent to them?
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
Andy Murray told the Sunday Times last weekend he didn't like Salmond waving the flag.
So what? I'm not surprised given the media hysteria it caused. If it had passed without comment from the Greater Englanders I suspect Murray wouldn't have minded. Who can forget the hoo-ha when the guy admitted he supported England's opponents at football? As England are Scotland's arch rivals fair enough. Yet the guy got lambasted for it. I say fair play to him, but he is clearly sore from the experience.
It's very rare that England fans support whoever is playing Scotland.
Morning all and on thread, as I have said for over a year, this summer presents the "Perfect Storm" for Eck and the YESNP.
It started a fortnight ago with the Tories outperforming expectations in the Euro and Local elections. It continued last week with the easy Tory hold in Newark. This week the English media has gone into overdrive promoting a 2nd rate football team which few expect to get beyond the group stage and almost none beyond the quarter finals. We now have many in the media and political commentariat expecting the Tories to get back in next year. Over the next fortnight we have the hype surrounding Bannockburn 2014 Next month we have the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, today they announce the largest Scottish team ever, 100 more athletes than in Manchester Then we have the Ryder Cup By August/September is it not likely that the re-election of a Westminster Tory government will be the main political story..........
just in time for Eck to say, vote YES on 18th September and avoid 5 more years of Tory rule from London.
Last week I thought that NO might just win but now I am tipping back into expecting a narrow YES. Worryingly for the future of Scotland it is getting really nasty as evidenced by the spat over Eck's spad and his disgraceful slur on the Labour wifie.
Once again you are project what's in your head, not reality.
The media are not over promoting England at all. The hype has been conspicuous in its absence this year.
You are conflating your own prejudices with actuality.
so this morning's front page of The Sun in England is a figment of my imagination plus all the garbage I have heard this week on BBC News and SKY News which I listen to/watch around 6 hrs a day, every day.
Are you seriously suggesting that were Scotland to be playing in the World Cup Scottish newspapers would not be making that a big story? The tournament is on the front pages of every newspaper in every country that has a team in Brazil - even the US and Japan. In the same way, were Scotland to be there it would be covered on all the TV channels - just as it always was in the past.
No of course not. The point I was making is that the coverage is already OTT as it always is when England compete in a football tournament. I don't remember coverage like that when England won the Rugby World Cup or the Ashes which arguably is a greater achievement. Bread and Circuses. It just adds to the YESNP mantra.
Pedantic point but - Phil Collins did actually move to Geneva and according to this article from 2009, ALW never claimed he would leave UK.
“I am 61 years old. I have lived and worked in Britain all my life. Not even in the dark days of penal Labour taxation in the Seventies did I have any intention of leaving the country of my birth.
Despite a rumour put around some years back, I have never contemplated leaving Britain for tax reasons.”
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
Just get rid of faith teaching in any school that receives state funding. No more skirting around the issue.
But there isn't an "issue" in any of the non-Muslim schools.
F1: just retweeted some stuff from an F1 chap, with potential title implications (minor, but the race is tight).
At the next race Hamilton will be on set 4/5 of electronics, Rosberg 3/5. Using set 6 means a 10 place grid penalty. The Mercedes is a beast and will still rise through the ranks even with such a handicap, but it could allow the other car to make a healthy gap.
Given we're on race 8 of 19 (I think) next, it seems certain that Hamilton (and Rosberg) will end up with penalties sooner or later. That said, so will some other cars.
I still suspect Hamilton's favourite for the title, but it's marginal. Rosberg is not a pushover.
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
My argument with you Socrates is that you present the whole issue as Lefties v the rest, when in fact - as the Pearson article makes clear - this is something that has been ignored for decades. Labour dismissed the issue because they needed votes, the Tories ignored it because they did not need them.
I think the Tories in times gone by ignored it because they were fearful of the racist card being played against them by the Left. As they were right to fear - you just need to look at how the pot has been stirred against UKIP in the last few months. (And in that case I have been particularly critical of the Tories for indulging in the old left-wing trick now that it suits them.)
I am also commenting now. The right is now all on the same page on this, while it is the left that prefers to either make fun of the drive for "British values", or complain that "Britishness" is exclusive, rather than acknowledge the elephant in the room. In fact, I find the latter claim particularly bizarre, given that for years they've been insisting that these immigrant groups are as British as the rest of us. But now the word "British" is supposed to be repellent to them?
I think the Tories largely ignored it because it did not affect many people who voted for them. I am not sure you are accurately representing any mainstream view from the left.
"By September 18th, Tory leads should be commonplace..."
Noted.
When do you forecast commonplace Tory leads prior to next May ?
I don't. I forecast the odd MOE 'crossover' poll.
Ulp. I agree with BobaFett.
I think there will be a fairly consistent Labour lead in the polls of 2-3% through until voters start paying attention.
Then there will be a shift, based on the mene, mene principle colliding with EdM's ambition. IMHO, it will be enough to give the Tories a small lead on the day (I see UKIP eroding, and some 10LD returning to the fold). That for me makes the Tories the largest party (in votes and seats) and probably means a continuation of the coalition, assumin that LibDems want to...
I doubt that Con+DUP will be sufficient to achieve a stable majority, although possibly Con minority + LD&DUP S&C could work.
Morning all and on thread, as I have said for over a year, this summer presents the "Perfect Storm" for Eck and the YESNP.
It started a fortnight ago with the Tories outperforming expectations in the Euro and Local elections. It continued last week with the easy Tory hold in Newark. This week the English media has gone into overdrive promoting a 2nd rate football team which few expect to get beyond the group stage and almost none beyond the quarter finals. We now have many in the media and political commentariat expecting the Tories to get back in next year. Over the next fortnight we have the hype surrounding Bannockburn 2014 Next month we have the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, today they announce the largest Scottish team ever, 100 more athletes than in Manchester Then we have the Ryder Cup By August/September is it not likely that the re-election of a Westminster Tory government will be the main political story..........
just in time for Eck to say, vote YES on 18th September and avoid 5 more years of Tory rule from London.
Last week I thought that NO might just win but now I am tipping back into expecting a narrow YES. Worryingly for the future of Scotland it is getting really nasty as evidenced by the spat over Eck's spad and his disgraceful slur on the Labour wifie.
Once again you are project what's in your head, not reality.
The media are not over promoting England at all. The hype has been conspicuous in its absence this year.
You are conflating your own prejudices with actuality.
so this morning's front page of The Sun in England is a figment of my imagination plus all the garbage I have heard this week on BBC News and SKY News which I listen to/watch around 6 hrs a day, every day.
Are you seriously suggesting that were Scotland to be playing in the World Cup Scottish newspapers would not be making that a big story? The tournament is on the front pages of every newspaper in every country that has a team in Brazil - even the US and Japan. In the same way, were Scotland to be there it would be covered on all the TV channels - just as it always was in the past.
No of course not. The point I was making is that the coverage is already OTT as it always is when England compete in a football tournament. I don't remember coverage like that when England won the Rugby World Cup or the Ashes which arguably is a greater achievement. Bread and Circuses. It just adds to the YESNP mantra.
It went berserk when England won the RWC and the Ashes - especially in 2005.
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
Just get rid of faith teaching in any school that receives state funding. No more skirting around the issue.
But there isn't an "issue" in any of the non-Muslim schools.
Apart from the minor issue of us teaching children that a bloke turned water into wine and came back from the dead, no. And the other problem of schools teaching creationism as a science. Other than that, all fine and dandy.
Still on that ultra low polling for the LibDems ...... is there any remaining prospect of Uncle Vince being drafted in to hold the fort at the forthcoming GE - available at 8/1 from Paddy Power - or are they now stuck with Clegg come what may?
[edit] Morning all.
Is there any polling evidence to suggest replacing Clegg with Cable would improve the LD's lot prior to GE2015? - If not, then Clegg is safe, er until further notice.
Any odds on Charles Kennedy as next LibDem leader? In the event of the LibDems being on 6% at the GE, he'd be one of about three MPs.
Yes ....... 50/1 available from Hills, etc. Btw is your real name Martin Day by any chance?
LOL!
Personally, I think the Libs will - as they did in 2010, 2005, 2001 and 1997 - get around the same share at the General that they have done in the Locals.
This would put them on about 12-14% at the General Election (I would suspect the lower end) - and I reckon around 25-35 seats.
However, if you believe LibDemaggedon (i.e. 6-7% share at the GE) then maybe the cheapest way is to bet on Charles Kennedy to be leader.
If the LibDems lose 75% of their vote, then Tim Farron will not be in the HoC; nor will Vince Cable, Ed Davey, Danny Alexander, Jo Swinson, Jeremy Browne or Norman Lamb. In fact, there will be very few seats (certainly less than half a dozen) that they will keep. Charles Kennedy is one of the few people who would remain an MP. And he is still an ambitious man; he is (I believe) now sober; and he led the LibDems to notable successes in the past.
I think 50-1 and up is a good hedge for the bets that I laid isam :-)
I've just backed CK at 60 with Betfair for a couple of quid - he is of course greatly loved by the Great British Public and surely has to be a better bet than Chris Huhne who as a non-MP is at a ridiculous price of 26.
A reminder, if one were needed, of how toxic Mrs Thatcher's treatment of Scotland made her party north of the border, which had up till then consistently returned a couple of dozen Conservative MPs rather than its current one or none.
The Scottish Conservative decline both pre-dates, and post-dates Thatcher. The Party went from 50% of the vote in 1955 to 31% in 1979. It went from 26% in 1992, to 15% now.
Presumably this is because Conservative-leaning voters in Scotland would tend to leave.
Should Scotland actually vote Yes Salmond will need a wall to keep them in.
In the same way that Andrew Lloyd Webber and Phil Collins honoured their threat to leave the UK if Labour got in?
You could actually compile an extremely long list of similar daft threats.
ALW and Collins resemble Mr Dickson, Sean Connery, and Michael Henchard out of The Mayor of Casterbridge: forever bigging up Scotland, but never evincing the slightest inclination actually to live there. Or indeed, forever banging on about how awful the place they live in is / will be, but never actually getting around to leaving.
It's a triumph of pragmatic convenience over lightly-held principle.
- Not allow extended absences for month-long holidays back to the homeland - Not allow absences for arranged marriages - Teach the genetic dangers of cousin marriages in sex education - Enforce school uniform policy properly - Not allow opt outs of studying certain texts for religious reasons
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
He must of known that he would be all over the papers the next day.
On one level, that's why he did it.
But he wasn't trying to share in Murray's glory (eg by posing with him shaking hands). He was trying to steal it.
I love my cricket and my rugby but to claim it's a greater achievement to with the RWC or Ashes is simply risible. Football, like it or not, is the world game. It's the one team sport that every nation on Earth plays and is without doubt the premier and most competitive sport in the world. Winning the World Cup is the ultimate sporting glory.
Apart from the minor issue of us teaching children that a bloke turned water into wine and came back from the dead, no. And the other problem of schools teaching creationism as a science. Other than that, all fine and dandy.
I went to a Church of England school and was only taught the first thing as "this is what Christians believe." I was also taught about the other major religions.
As for the creationism thing, I believe that was put a stop to, so isn't currently a problem.
Besides, this stuff is not in any way comparable to calling Western women "white prostitutes", having pro-stoning books, anti-Christian chants etc? It really is an intellectual block on left-leaning people that they can't criticize Islam in isolation. It must always be accompanied with a bash at Christianity.
Apart from the minor issue of us teaching children that a bloke turned water into wine and came back from the dead, no. And the other problem of schools teaching creationism as a science. Other than that, all fine and dandy.
I went to a Church of England school and was only taught the first thing as "this is what Christians believe." I was also taught about the other major religions.
As for the creationism thing, I believe that was put a stop to, so isn't currently a problem.
Besides, this stuff is not in any way comparable to calling Western women "white prostitutes", having pro-stoning books, anti-Christian chants etc? It really is an intellectual block on left-leaning people that they can't criticize Islam in isolation. It must always be accompanied with a bash at Christianity.
I have a bash at all religions. All of them have been used as excuses to kill, maim and oppress at different points in time and in different places.
If Easterross is right, though, the patriotic duty of the English football team is to get knocked out as soon as possible. Should we, by some miracle, win the thing that would be the end of the Union.
If that really is true, though, there is no real Union so it would be better for all sides if it came to an end, however the England team performs.
Why is it "the patriotic duty of the English football team is to get knocked out as soon as possible"? If anybody said that about the Brazilian, French or Australian teams they would be considered a weirdo, but in England it is considered to be acceptable to want your own team to lose.
English self-hatred is one of the strangest aspects of modern European society.
Because on easterross's view English success is likely to lead to a Scottish "Yes" vote.
Given that any 16 or 17 year old requires the permission of parents anyway, how do you differentiate?
I know several people who were in 'arranged' marriages, in that the parents organised for the people to meet someone who it was considered suitable for them to marry. But in each case, there was never any suggestion that anyone would marry someone whom they did not want to marry.
rcs1000 : "However, if you believe LibDemaggedon (i.e. 6-7% share at the GE) then maybe the cheapest way is to bet on Charles Kennedy to be leader."
Alternatively in the event of a Martin Day-style Taxi/Telephone Box scenario, one could take advantage of Ladbrokes' 12/1 offering on the LibDems winning 0-10 seats. I think I'd better sign off now before your Dad gets too mad with me!
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
Andy Murray told the Sunday Times last weekend he didn't like Salmond waving the flag.
So what? I'm not surprised given the media hysteria it caused. If it had passed without comment from the Greater Englanders I suspect Murray wouldn't have minded. Who can forget the hoo-ha when the guy admitted he supported England's opponents at football? As England are Scotland's arch rivals fair enough. Yet the guy got lambasted for it. I say fair play to him, but he is clearly sore from the experience.
Is there a term for the situation where one country or entity considers another its arch rivals, but does so unilaterally, i.e. the other party does not reciprocate?
This alleged Scottish-England arch-rivalry is just one example. Some Scots may view England as Scotland's arch rivals, but there can be almost no English who reciprocate this feeling. England probably views Germany as its arch-rivals at football; Australia in cricket; in rugby I don't know, maybe the All Blacks? - but Scotland wouldn't be on the radar anywhere.
Germany in turn would be puzzled at the idea of being England's football arch-rival, because Germany always wins these encounters, so where's the rivalry exactly? Their arch-rival is probably someone else again, who actually troubles them.
Oxford folk regard Cambridge as their arch-rivals and even have a name for Cantabrigians ("tabs"). Cambridge folk do not have a name for Oxonians - why would they? - and since Cantab has placed higher than Oxon in the academic quality stakes for years, the idea that Oxford is Cambridge's arch rival is eccentric self-flattery on Oxford's part. If pushed to name one, Cambridge would probably identify its arch-rival as somewhere like Harvard or MIT.
There must be a term for this unilateral sense of rivalry, unless it's just "inferiority complex"?
Apart from the minor issue of us teaching children that a bloke turned water into wine and came back from the dead, no. And the other problem of schools teaching creationism as a science. Other than that, all fine and dandy.
I went to a Church of England school and was only taught the first thing as "this is what Christians believe." I was also taught about the other major religions.
As for the creationism thing, I believe that was put a stop to, so isn't currently a problem.
Besides, this stuff is not in any way comparable to calling Western women "white prostitutes", having pro-stoning books, anti-Christian chants etc? It really is an intellectual block on left-leaning people that they can't criticize Islam in isolation. It must always be accompanied with a bash at Christianity.
Were any of the schools in Birmingham Muslim schools in the same way as we have CoE or Catholic schools? I may be wrong, but none of them seem to have been. The issue looks to be much more about very lax governance and oversight.
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
Andy Murray told the Sunday Times last weekend he didn't like Salmond waving the flag.
So what? I'm not surprised given the media hysteria it caused. If it had passed without comment from the Greater Englanders I suspect Murray wouldn't have minded. Who can forget the hoo-ha when the guy admitted he supported England's opponents at football? As England are Scotland's arch rivals fair enough. Yet the guy got lambasted for it. I say fair play to him, but he is clearly sore from the experience.
Is there a term for the situation where one country or entity considers another its arch rivals, but does so unilaterally, i.e. the other party does not reciprocate?
This alleged Scottish-England arch-rivalry is just one example. Some Scots may view England as Scotland's arch rivals, but there can be almost no English who reciprocate this feeling. England probably views Germany as its arch-rivals at football; Australia in cricket; in rugby I don't know, maybe the All Blacks? - but Scotland wouldn't be on the radar anywhere.
Germany in turn would be puzzled at the idea of being England's football arch-rival, because Germany always wins these encounters, so where's the rivalry exactly? Their arch-rival is probably someone else again, who actually troubles them.
Oxford folk regard Cambridge as their arch-rivals and even have a name for Cantabrigians ("tabs"). Cambridge folk do not have a name for Oxonians - why would they? - and since Cantab has placed higher than Oxon in the academic quality stakes for years, the idea that Oxford is Cambridge's arch rival is eccentric self-flattery on Oxford's part. If pushed to name one, Cambridge would probably identify its arch-rival as somewhere like Harvard or MIT.
There must be a term for this unilateral sense of rivalry, unless it's just "inferiority complex"?
Never heard the "tabs" thing, and Oxford's superiority to Cambridge has been set in stone since the 12th century and is unaffected by recent "academic quality stakes" whatever they are.
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
Just get rid of faith teaching in any school that receives state funding. No more skirting around the issue.
But there isn't an "issue" in any of the non-Muslim schools.
Is teaching of 'intelligent design' and 'teaching the [evolution] controversy' OK with state money at evangelical Christian schools?
What about at state funded orthodox Jewish schools in North London? I can assure you these would be as alien to you (except that the women dressed 'conservatively' would be white and unable to shake your hand) as those Islamic ones in Birmingham.
In each case, people are using state money to push religious agendas.
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
The way to do it is to ban overbearingly religious state schools that are controlled by one religion, that are not needed in a secular society. If one wants to teach the younger generation a deeper understanding of their own religion there are the Madrassas for Muslims, the Yeshivot for Jews and Sunday schools for Christians. If one wants a general grounding in religion, then it can be put on a normal weekly syllabus.
The pity of it is that after 50 years of socialist theory in education, that has f**ked up the lives of kids for over two generations, masses of children and youths leave school unable to read, write or articulate. Bring back the Grammar Schools and common sense to education.
Mr. Jim, very often when a mistake is made the reaction is to move so far in the other direction a second (but entirely different) mistake is made.
The blame rests with Blair. The lack of preparation for the aftermath, the needless war, the untruths spoken about it, all these things have caused long term damage.
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
Andy Murray told the Sunday Times last weekend he didn't like Salmond waving the flag.
So what? I'm not surprised given the media hysteria it caused. If it had passed without comment from the Greater Englanders I suspect Murray wouldn't have minded. Who can forget the hoo-ha when the guy admitted he supported England's opponents at football? As England are Scotland's arch rivals fair enough. Yet the guy got lambasted for it. I say fair play to him, but he is clearly sore from the experience.
Is there a term for the situation where one country or entity considers another its arch rivals, but does so unilaterally, i.e. the other party does not reciprocate?
This alleged Scottish-England arch-rivalry is just one example. Some Scots may view England as Scotland's arch rivals, but there can be almost no English who reciprocate this feeling. England probably views Germany as its arch-rivals at football; Australia in cricket; in rugby I don't know, maybe the All Blacks? - but Scotland wouldn't be on the radar anywhere.
Germany in turn would be puzzled at the idea of being England's football arch-rival, because Germany always wins these encounters, so where's the rivalry exactly? Their arch-rival is probably someone else again, who actually troubles them.
Oxford folk regard Cambridge as their arch-rivals and even have a name for Cantabrigians ("tabs"). Cambridge folk do not have a name for Oxonians - why would they? - and since Cantab has placed higher than Oxon in the academic quality stakes for years, the idea that Oxford is Cambridge's arch rival is eccentric self-flattery on Oxford's part. If pushed to name one, Cambridge would probably identify its arch-rival as somewhere like Harvard or MIT.
There must be a term for this unilateral sense of rivalry, unless it's just "inferiority complex"?
In rugby England's rivals are everyone. They all hate us. Every single one of them!
The big football rivalry for Germany is probably the Netherlands.
Maybe the closest equivalent to England v Scotland in one-sidedness of antipathy is Spain v Portugal.
Thanks for this. I'm very interested by your brief mention of Harlow.
I'm afraid that post ended up being a bit like War And Peace.
My general approach is to look at where UKIP is actually winning first past the post elections, rather than high shares of vote. My logic for this is as follows:
1) winning seats means being the most popular in a given area and not just having some support.
2) winning seats means having an adequate ground game
3) winning seats means having visible local candidates who potentially have a personal vote.
Harlow hasn't featured to date on commentaries about UKIP strength, but that seat count makes it look interesting. It is a longshot, but the odds reflect that.
I was more interested in Portsmouth South simply because I think UKIP's best chances often lie where the seat dynamics are chaotic and unpredictable. Portsmouth South epitomises that sort of chaos, where the vote could be going three or four ways, depending on what happens with Mike Hancock (he might be deselected, he might be reinstated or he might stand as an independent).
Point of order, when it boils down to it, the majority of Scots don't care if England wins, Just lock up all your more insane football pundits in a secure institution till the next world cup.
The only issue I have is with her saying that now is the time to do this. Of course it is but we have known for 30 years that this should be done - since Ray Honeyford, since the Rushdie fatwa. There are none so blind, alas, as those that don't want to see.
Agreed on both points. It is a very good piece indeed. For the reasons set out in the article we have failed generations of muslim girls in this country and it really needs to stop. They deserve better.
Yes - outstanding piece.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
The way to do it is to ban overbearingly religious state schools that are controlled by one religion, that are not needed in a secular society. If one wants to teach the younger generation a deeper understanding of their own religion there are the Madrassas for Muslims, the Yeshivot for Jews and Sunday schools for Christians. If one wants a general grounding in religion, then it can be put on a normal weekly syllabus.
A period of silence on football from you @JamesBond would be welcome.
Germany don't "always" win their encounters with England at all. We beat them in our only WCF meeting and hammered them 5-1 in Munich as recently as 2001.
And what's this Germany is England is grammar? This isn't the States. England are, Germany are...
Mr. Jim, very often when a mistake is made the reaction is to move so far in the other direction a second (but entirely different) mistake is made.
The blame rests with Blair. The lack of preparation for the aftermath, the needless war, the untruths spoken about it, all these things have caused long term damage.
I agree, like I said on threads passim we need to look at the situation on its merits and ditch the Iraq 2003 prism. I doubt we will be able to, but to ignore the international security implications of this would be calamitous.
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
Andy Murray told the Sunday Times last weekend he didn't like Salmond waving the flag.
So what? I'm not surprised given the media hysteria it caused. If it had passed without comment from the Greater Englanders I suspect Murray wouldn't have minded. Who can forget the hoo-ha when the guy admitted he supported England's opponents at football? As England are Scotland's arch rivals fair enough. Yet the guy got lambasted for it. I say fair play to him, but he is clearly sore from the experience.
Is there a term for the situation where one country or entity considers another its arch rivals,
There must be a term for this unilateral sense of rivalry, unless it's just "inferiority complex"?
In rugby England's rivals are everyone. They all hate us. Every single one of them!
The big football rivalry for Germany is probably the Netherlands.
Maybe the closest equivalent to England v Scotland in one-sidedness of antipathy is Spain v Portugal.
SO
have tried several times over last 2 days to get details from Sunil re this evening, so suggest we reschedule when he finally gets round to ringing me !
Apart from the minor issue of us teaching children that a bloke turned water into wine and came back from the dead, no. And the other problem of schools teaching creationism as a science. Other than that, all fine and dandy.
I went to a Church of England school and was only taught the first thing as "this is what Christians believe." I was also taught about the other major religions.
As for the creationism thing, I believe that was put a stop to, so isn't currently a problem.
Besides, this stuff is not in any way comparable to calling Western women "white prostitutes", having pro-stoning books, anti-Christian chants etc? It really is an intellectual block on left-leaning people that they can't criticize Islam in isolation. It must always be accompanied with a bash at Christianity.
Were any of the schools in Birmingham Muslim schools in the same way as we have CoE or Catholic schools? I may be wrong, but none of them seem to have been. The issue looks to be much more about very lax governance and oversight.
Isnt the point that they were supposed to be secular schools?
I cant really see why anyone is surprised that if Governments do nothing to prevent a segregated society, areas that are 97% muslim become Islmaic states
A sign of a nation's confidence (or at least sporting confidence) is to only care about supporting their team and not hating or wishing ill on other teams. There are some bonehead England fans who invest hatred in hoping Germany or Argentina lose and half hoping Scotland do (although in my experience they are very much third on the hate the team barometer behind the other two) but sport is about achievement not hate and I am glad that most England fans do not want other teams to lose they want England to win
Mr. Jim, mistake*. To quote Grand Admiral Thrawn, an error is when you do something wrong. A mistake is when you fail to correct it.
[As an aside, the extended universe of Star Wars is not being considered canon, with the release of 3 more films. Doesn't particularly affect me, although it does seem odd that Jar Jar Binks is considered canon...]
In rugby England's rivals are everyone. They all hate us. Every single one of them!
That chimes with my more atavistic feelings. I'm pretty indifferent to England's football team's performance , but I could never love an England rugby team, probably a consequence of Scotland being beaten too many times by smug erseholes in the nineties. Conversely I now think Brian Moore is great, so rapprochement is possible I guess.
I fail to see what the bloody fuss was about re: Salmond and the saltire.
Scottish FM celebrates Scottish player who was born in Scotland and is a proud Scot winning by waving a Scottish flag.
It's not the effing Olympics where you are only allowed to wave the flags Seb Coe approves of, thank god. In most major sports he'd be playing officially for Scotland anyway, and, according to Google Sports, he does in tennis too...
Andy Murray told the Sunday Times last weekend he didn't like Salmond waving the flag.
So what? I'm not surprised given the media hysteria it caused. If it had passed without comment from the Greater Englanders I suspect Murray wouldn't have minded. Who can forget the hoo-ha when the guy admitted he supported England's opponents at football? As England are Scotland's arch rivals fair enough. Yet the guy got lambasted for it. I say fair play to him, but he is clearly sore from the experience.
Is there a term for the situation where one country or entity considers another its arch rivals,
There must be a term for this unilateral sense of rivalry, unless it's just "inferiority complex"?
In rugby England's rivals are everyone. They all hate us. Every single one of them!
The big football rivalry for Germany is probably the Netherlands.
Maybe the closest equivalent to England v Scotland in one-sidedness of antipathy is Spain v Portugal.
SO
have tried several times over last 2 days to get details from Sunil re this evening, so suggest we reschedule when he finally gets round to ringing me !
Mr. Observer, it does amuse me that almost every Six Nations match is a grudge match (for England).
Mr. Jim, would that we could, but the shadow of the dodgy dossier looms large.
With a good coach and a decent set of players that probably works to England's advantage and make us a better team. It's huge motivation. When they are not so good it is a big problem, of course.
George Galoway is a special case, but in general you don't have to be on any side to disagree with the war. Personally, I was in favour, but the aftermath of it ranged from the shambolic to the downright criminal.
Comments
That is so. But, it now makes it very difficult for Labour to make a convincing argument for the Union. After all, Labour has been outpolled by the SNP since 2007. They can make the argument that they speak for Scotland more effectively than SLAB.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10884726/Andy-Murray-I-didnt-like-Alex-Salmonds-Scottish-flag-waving-at-Wimbledon.html
Indeed. But that is not a bad thing.
Tennis is a Commonwealth sport, and Murray is eligible for Scottish selection. Last time round he chose to compete in China rather than India, which was wise, as he won that tournament. Tennis is omitted from the Glasgow schedule, as are many other Commonwealth sports.
Presumably this is because Conservative-leaning voters in Scotland would tend to leave.
Should Scotland actually vote Yes Salmond will need a wall to keep them in.
If that really is true, though, there is no real Union so it would be better for all sides if it came to an end, however the England team performs.
How's Ruth Davidson's "Line In The Sand" doing?
Exactly right.
For one who purports to be a unionist, @Easterross is incredibly anti English.
By contrast, I find many Nats on here (Malc excepted!) such as Stuart very respectful to the idea of England and Englishness.
Funny old world.
It's a wonderful feeling when what you've been arguing for years, and previously felt like bashing your head on a brick wall, is finally picked up by the mainstream media and the government. What we need to do now is make sure that these Muslim schools don't just pay lip service to British values. A good way to keep them honest would be to require religious schools to have, say, 20% of their students from other religions. That would mean word would always get out if they tried to get away with preaching inegalitarian and backwards views.
Absolutely. But that was never my point. I was taking issue with the notion that the Tories in Scotland are victims of dastardly Labour tactics and have no responsibility for their toxicity.
Interestingly, it seems less of a political football than one might think. It is obviously a Labour (and Glasgow Labour) project commenced when Labour were in power at Holyrood, but now the SNP are in charge nationally, so both Glasgow Labour and the SNP have an interest in it going well. My impression is that the tensions have tended to be between Glasgow Labour, under Mr Mathieson, and the local Trots/Greens/Socialists (e.g. when people were cleared for the benefit of le grand projet).
The other interesting thing is Mr Cameron coming up here to launch the commemoration of the Great War as part of this. This may seem odd as the UK Gmt has not contributed significantly, in contrast to Scotland and the London Olympics, but it is logical enough as that is where the Commonwealth heads of state will be at the relevant time. However, Glasgow is an "interesting" place for a Tory to do so because of the wartime and early postwar problems, and the possible explicit links with the indyref whuch Mr C may make. Will be interesting.
I think there will be a fairly consistent Labour lead in the polls of 2-3% through
You could actually compile an extremely long list of similar daft threats.
I like chips.
In such circumstances, I suppose the LibDems could select a peer from their ranks as the next party leader. No prizes for guessing who that might be and no, I'm not referring to the by then newly-enobled Lord Clegg of Hallam.
http://www.thepaperboy.com/frontpages/current/The_Sun_newspaper_front_page.jpg
English self-hatred is one of the strangest aspects of modern European society.
(But I'd be wary of his betting tips!)
I am also commenting now. The right is now all on the same page on this, while it is the left that prefers to either make fun of the drive for "British values", or complain that "Britishness" is exclusive, rather than acknowledge the elephant in the room. In fact, I find the latter claim particularly bizarre, given that for years they've been insisting that these immigrant groups are as British as the rest of us. But now the word "British" is supposed to be repellent to them?
Will he take up the Euro referendum bill ?
“I am 61 years old. I have lived and worked in Britain all my life. Not even in the dark days of penal Labour taxation in the Seventies did I have any intention of leaving the country of my birth.
Despite a rumour put around some years back, I have never contemplated leaving Britain for tax reasons.”
http://tinyurl.com/da5qc9
Michael Moore (LD) second
LDs do well in ballot shock
At the next race Hamilton will be on set 4/5 of electronics, Rosberg 3/5. Using set 6 means a 10 place grid penalty. The Mercedes is a beast and will still rise through the ranks even with such a handicap, but it could allow the other car to make a healthy gap.
Given we're on race 8 of 19 (I think) next, it seems certain that Hamilton (and Rosberg) will end up with penalties sooner or later. That said, so will some other cars.
I still suspect Hamilton's favourite for the title, but it's marginal. Rosberg is not a pushover.
I think there will be a fairly consistent Labour lead in the polls of 2-3% through until voters start paying attention.
Then there will be a shift, based on the mene, mene principle colliding with EdM's ambition. IMHO, it will be enough to give the Tories a small lead on the day (I see UKIP eroding, and some 10LD returning to the fold). That for me makes the Tories the largest party (in votes and seats) and probably means a continuation of the coalition, assumin that LibDems want to...
I doubt that Con+DUP will be sufficient to achieve a stable majority, although possibly Con minority + LD&DUP S&C could work.
We've developed a kind of cultural stutter which means we find it very difficult to assert that (say) UK values are better than (say) Sudanese values.
It's a triumph of pragmatic convenience over lightly-held principle.
- Not allow extended absences for month-long holidays back to the homeland
- Not allow absences for arranged marriages
- Teach the genetic dangers of cousin marriages in sex education
- Enforce school uniform policy properly
- Not allow opt outs of studying certain texts for religious reasons
On one level, that's why he did it.
But he wasn't trying to share in Murray's glory (eg by posing with him shaking hands). He was trying to steal it.
That's ungracious.
I love my cricket and my rugby but to claim it's a greater achievement to with the RWC or Ashes is simply risible. Football, like it or not, is the world game. It's the one team sport that every nation on Earth plays and is without doubt the premier and most competitive sport in the world. Winning the World Cup is the ultimate sporting glory.
As for the creationism thing, I believe that was put a stop to, so isn't currently a problem.
Besides, this stuff is not in any way comparable to calling Western women "white prostitutes", having pro-stoning books, anti-Christian chants etc? It really is an intellectual block on left-leaning people that they can't criticize Islam in isolation. It must always be accompanied with a bash at Christianity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27809051
I know several people who were in 'arranged' marriages, in that the parents organised for the people to meet someone who it was considered suitable for them to marry. But in each case, there was never any suggestion that anyone would marry someone whom they did not want to marry.
How do you define 'arranged' marriage?
Alternatively in the event of a Martin Day-style Taxi/Telephone Box scenario, one could take advantage of Ladbrokes' 12/1 offering on the LibDems winning 0-10 seats.
I think I'd better sign off now before your Dad gets too mad with me!
This alleged Scottish-England arch-rivalry is just one example. Some Scots may view England as Scotland's arch rivals, but there can be almost no English who reciprocate this feeling. England probably views Germany as its arch-rivals at football; Australia in cricket; in rugby I don't know, maybe the All Blacks? - but Scotland wouldn't be on the radar anywhere.
Germany in turn would be puzzled at the idea of being England's football arch-rival, because Germany always wins these encounters, so where's the rivalry exactly? Their arch-rival is probably someone else again, who actually troubles them.
Oxford folk regard Cambridge as their arch-rivals and even have a name for Cantabrigians ("tabs"). Cambridge folk do not have a name for Oxonians - why would they? - and since Cantab has placed higher than Oxon in the academic quality stakes for years, the idea that Oxford is Cambridge's arch rival is eccentric self-flattery on Oxford's part. If pushed to name one, Cambridge would probably identify its arch-rival as somewhere like Harvard or MIT.
There must be a term for this unilateral sense of rivalry, unless it's just "inferiority complex"?
Portsmouth North 2014
Baffins: UKIP
Copnor: UKIP
Cosham: Con
Drayton and Farlington: Con
Hilsea: Con
Nelson: UKIP
Paulsgrove: UKIP
Portsmouth South 2014
Central Southsea: LD
Charles Dickens: UKIP
Eastney and Craneswater: Con
Fratton: UKIP
Milton: LD
St Jude: Con
St Thomas: LD
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/updated-portsmouth-city-council-election-results-1-6077112
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Boundaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Boundaries
What about at state funded orthodox Jewish schools in North London? I can assure you these would be as alien to you (except that the women dressed 'conservatively' would be white and unable to shake your hand) as those Islamic ones in Birmingham.
In each case, people are using state money to push religious agendas.
The pity of it is that after 50 years of socialist theory in education, that has f**ked up the lives of kids for over two generations, masses of children and youths leave school unable to read, write or articulate. Bring back the Grammar Schools and common sense to education.
The blame rests with Blair. The lack of preparation for the aftermath, the needless war, the untruths spoken about it, all these things have caused long term damage.
The big football rivalry for Germany is probably the Netherlands.
Maybe the closest equivalent to England v Scotland in one-sidedness of antipathy is Spain v Portugal.
My general approach is to look at where UKIP is actually winning first past the post elections, rather than high shares of vote. My logic for this is as follows:
1) winning seats means being the most popular in a given area and not just having some support.
2) winning seats means having an adequate ground game
3) winning seats means having visible local candidates who potentially have a personal vote.
Harlow hasn't featured to date on commentaries about UKIP strength, but that seat count makes it look interesting. It is a longshot, but the odds reflect that. Thanks, that's helpful.
I was more interested in Portsmouth South simply because I think UKIP's best chances often lie where the seat dynamics are chaotic and unpredictable. Portsmouth South epitomises that sort of chaos, where the vote could be going three or four ways, depending on what happens with Mike Hancock (he might be deselected, he might be reinstated or he might stand as an independent).
But your point is well made.
Germany don't "always" win their encounters with England at all. We beat them in our only WCF meeting and hammered them 5-1 in Munich as recently as 2001.
And what's this Germany is England is grammar? This isn't the States. England are, Germany are...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27806814
Mr. Jim, would that we could, but the shadow of the dodgy dossier looms large.
have tried several times over last 2 days to get details from Sunil re this evening, so suggest we reschedule when he finally gets round to ringing me !
http://tinyurl.com/mdgcdkz
I cant really see why anyone is surprised that if Governments do nothing to prevent a segregated society, areas that are 97% muslim become Islmaic states
ww.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
That "peepul" would appear to be firmly in the "Yes" camp, Was Murphy barracked by a herd of sheep at the same house?
There are some bonehead England fans who invest hatred in hoping Germany or Argentina lose and half hoping Scotland do (although in my experience they are very much third on the hate the team barometer behind the other two) but sport is about achievement not hate and I am glad that most England fans do not want other teams to lose they want England to win
[As an aside, the extended universe of Star Wars is not being considered canon, with the release of 3 more films. Doesn't particularly affect me, although it does seem odd that Jar Jar Binks is considered canon...]
Dunfermline & West Fife
Labour 1/20
SNP 10/1
Liberal Democrats 20/1
Dumfries & Galloway
Labour1/50
SNP 25/1
Conservatives 25/1
Glasgow North
Labour 1/25
SNP 10/1
Liberal Democrats 25/1
George Galoway is a special case, but in general you don't have to be on any side to disagree with the war. Personally, I was in favour, but the aftermath of it ranged from the shambolic to the downright criminal.