bunch of Tory jessies get off their bellies drop the inferiority complexes. drama queen Sad Tories big jessie typical cowardly unionist Sad Tory Sad embittered Tory "Maggie" big jessie sad little twerps playing with your dolls not very clever are we , not much enlightenment in that empty dome of yours. so bitter and twisted and hateful towards the country you people seem to be anally retentive Thick simpering bitter nasty bigoted narrow minded Tories The rantings of stupid Tories is breathtaking Sad embittered Tory we have real fruitcakes on here. You need to see a doctor
I think the person most in need of the last comment may be himself.....
Either him... or the person who draws up a list like that!
What sickens me now is there appears to be no follow-up. Even now the authorities are frozen by political correctness.
There are at least 250 Pakistani rapists walking the streets of Rotherham, peopl who we surely have ample evidence to indict and send down to long jail sentences.
Where are the arrests? where are the investigations?
Hopefully, although I'm not holding my breath, a few fires will be lit under people when parliament returns on Monday. If not someone, surely, will raise a stink at PMQ's.
Is nationality an acceptable way to filter immigrants?? Could we, for instance, have a moratorium on immigrants from Pakistan, even if they were spouses of British nationals? Or a quota?
Here in the far North my 8 x12 ft saltire has been flowering for over a month, Any ideas on keeping the white alyssum going for 3 more weeks? ( Gaun yersel Malky)
the issue will not be 'put to bed for a generation'.
You mean the Scottish Government has lied again?
If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date? FOLLOWING A ‘NO’ VOTE Answer: The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.
Weren't you expressing a hope that the newly enfranchised non-voters would continue being politically involved the other day? That's what I'm referring to.
If what governments said was the only writ in town, 'nationalism' would be currently stone dead, deceased, an ex -ism.
Indeed. Vide the Westminster mob telling us that crown sovereignty means ... er, one gmt can't bind the next.
In any case, in Ms V's selected excerpt, the SG said only that 1. there were no arrangements for another referendum, and 2. it was an opportunity that came once in a generation - they didn't say when the generation ended, October 2014 or whenever. Not a shade of a fib anywhere. Especially given the possibility that Westminster would try and suppress a second referendum, just as they did with the first. (I wonder what Wendy Alexander is feeling right now??)
carnyx, the truth is of no concern to "maggie", she just needs to be vitriolic to Scotland and SNP. Something bad must have happened to her in Scotland to make her so bitter and twisted and hateful towards the country, or maybe she is just a Tory.
I think you'll find its not me who comes across as vitriolic, bitter and twisted......and as usual, conflating disagreeing with the SNP with 'hating Scotland'.....are you one of the YESNP's Brown Shirts?
LOL, unionists don't like being asked real questions or having opposing opinions aired. Apart from a guy hitting him with an egg and a few curses it was all sedate stuff. Jim like his fellow unionists are not up to the rough and tumble of real political discussion. They are used to closed rooms with patsies in Westminster. Then their supporters come out of the woodwork and accuse people of being Nazi's just because they have a different political opinion. Ring wing British Nationalists are real nice people.
A better way to fix that is to have single constituencies, but with French style run offs.
So on May 15th all parties campaign, then the top two candidates go into a second round two weeks later (perhaps with a NOTA option as third choice!). It makes tactical voting more explicit, but retains the constituency link and ensures the winner has 50% support, even if grudgingly.
The two week break allows for fresh campaigning and also a pause for thought if one of the top two is controversial.
The public understand the system as participation in X factor etc voting shows!
I disagree. Run-offs just encourage tactical voting, negative campaigning and gaming the system in a way that's even worse than AV. These are scourges of modern politics and encourage people to believe their votes should be used against X or to stop Y, rather than as a positive force; a deeply corrosive attitude which leaves whatever government emerges as one people didn't really support and has consequent problems of legitimacy. Only SV, which is the worst of all worlds, is worse.
I agree with you David. I've always had a big doubt at the back of my mind about STV. Open list, in large 5-member constituencies, I could see working.
It must be a good 5-10 years away, though. A couple of lame duck governments will be needed before the established parties are goaded into action.
An issue with "open list" which I forgot to mention in replying to David Herdson is that it precludes "split tickets". I can & do understand why Party hacks think this is a good thing, but I'd like to hear an argument designed to persuade the rest of us!
Most voting systems preclude backing split tickets, including preferential ones like AV and STV, as in those you only have one vote, it just bounces around (actually, not necessarily quite true for STV as it can end up being split but if so that's more down to chance than anything).
I'm not strongly in favour either way on the issue. I can see the advantages of being able to back both a party and an individual as under AMS but I also like the simplicity of one-voter-one-vote.
The two main ways to keep party hacks out of it are (1) relatively low barriers to election, enabling new parties with a reasonable modicum of support to have an impact, and (2) candidate voting, so that voters aren't lumped with whatever the parties decide. STV and open lists both achieve both objects.
What sickens me now is there appears to be no follow-up. Even now the authorities are frozen by political correctness.
There are at least 250 Pakistani rapists walking the streets of Rotherham, peopl who we surely have ample evidence to indict and send down to long jail sentences.
Where are the arrests? where are the investigations?
Hopefully, although I'm not holding my breath, a few fires will be lit under people when parliament returns on Monday. If not someone, surely, will raise a stink at PMQ's.
Ha Ha Ha , you expect those troughers to do anything , ding dong your medication has arrived
So far the response from politicians of all shades has been to avoid questions from press and public, as they hide behind calls for more inquiries.
Politicians of all stripes cannot believe how wrong multi culturalism has gone. They are in complete shock and denial. They would rather talk about anything else.
What sickens me now is there appears to be no follow-up. Even now the authorities are frozen by political correctness.
There are at least 250 Pakistani rapists walking the streets of Rotherham, peopl who we surely have ample evidence to indict and send down to long jail sentences.
Where are the arrests? where are the investigations?
Hopefully, although I'm not holding my breath, a few fires will be lit under people when parliament returns on Monday. If not someone, surely, will raise a stink at PMQ's.
What Prof Jay makes clear is how little care is now being provided to the abused girls who so clearly need a great deal of therapeutic help to get their lives back into some kind of order and some peace of mind.
Will they get it? Will anyone care?
There needs to be a CPS/police task force from outside the area focused like a laser on those files and preparing prosecutions of perpetrators, colluders, everyone involved. And not just prosecutions: disciplinary actions, removal of taxi licences, public naming and shaming etc. And when they've finished with Rotherham, they can move onto all the other towns where this is happening.
I want to pick up on a point made by Nick Palmer yesterday evening: "For example, I'd dislike living under Sharia law, but I don't mind someone peacefully disagreeing and thinking it'd be great. "
I see no good reason why we should let people who are in favour of sharia law into this country because someone who thinks that it would be great is going to find it very hard to accept some of our fundamental values e.g. equality for women or for gays or freedom of religion because sharia law is so clearly against these things. It is one reason why Canadian Muslim women were so vociferously against a Canadian government proposal a few years ago to impose sharia law on Muslims in their country. They understood - as NP appears not to - why it was such a bad idea, for them, and made clear that they had emigrated to Canada to get away from this culture not have it imposed on them by dunderheaded liberals.
Why invite people in who think in a way that is fundamentally contrary and hostile to our basic values? What on earth does NP think this will do for social cohesion and our sense of community?
That is the fundamental problem with Labour's approach to this: they don't seem to understand that if you invite in bad ideas, they will spread, they will corrode our public space, they will crowd out better ideas, they will be taught to youngsters in our schools. Labour and the Tories and the Lib Dems have not only let in bad ideas but then told the rest of us that we must respect those ideas and that all ideas are equally valid and that while women are equal it's OK if some of your neighbours don't treat women equally because, hey, they are doing it peacefully. But they're not, are they - as we've now found out.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
There is a major difference between an opinion and a law.
It should be made plain to all immigrants that Sharia Law, FGM, etc is illegal. also covering of the face should be illegal. If you do not like these laws then you can leave.
We cannot have more than one set of basic laws for the people - it leads only to confusion, bias or persecution.
Has anyone noticed, that as the date of the IndyRef gets closer and the opinion polls stubbornly refuse to move in any dramatic way, the more desperate and vitriolic MalcolmG and other YESNP supporters become?
LOL, keep trying , why do you think we are so happy and you sad sack unionists are consumed by doom and gloom. Keep whinging.
What sickens me now is there appears to be no follow-up. Even now the authorities are frozen by political correctness.
There are at least 250 Pakistani rapists walking the streets of Rotherham, peopl who we surely have ample evidence to indict and send down to long jail sentences.
Where are the arrests? where are the investigations?
Three of the five who were arrested, charged and convicted in 2010 are already walking the streets.
bunch of Tory jessies get off their bellies drop the inferiority complexes. drama queen Sad Tories big jessie typical cowardly unionist Sad Tory Sad embittered Tory "Maggie" big jessie sad little twerps playing with your dolls not very clever are we , not much enlightenment in that empty dome of yours. so bitter and twisted and hateful towards the country you people seem to be anally retentive Thick simpering bitter nasty bigoted narrow minded Tories The rantings of stupid Tories is breathtaking Sad embittered Tory we have real fruitcakes on here. You need to see a doctor
I think the person most in need of the last comment may be himself.....
My stalker is getting real obsessive , glad you are locked up in England and not in Scotland. I would worry about getting a George.
Scottish friends and colleagues of mine have complained that The Saltire has been politicised -that you can't use it or say something like 'Let's support Scotland in the upcoming [insert event here]' without it coming out sounding like a nationalist statement. Sadly, even the notion of positivity itself seems to have been tainted by the obnoxious, bitter people who've appropriated the word 'yes'.
LOL, what a bunch of Tory jessies you must hang out with , tell them to get off their bellies and drop the inferiority complexes. You seem to be getting mixed up with national support and "nationalist" like your stupid friends who do not understand the difference.
Interesting things, inferiority complexes:
'A secondary inferiority feeling relates to an adult's experience of being unable to reach a subconscious, fictional final goal of subjective security and success to compensate for the inferiority feelings. The perceived distance from that goal would lead to a negative/depressed feeling that could then prompt the recall of the original inferiority feeling; this composite of inferiority feelings could be experienced as overwhelming. The goal invented to relieve the original, primary feeling of inferiority which actually causes the secondary feeling of inferiority is the "catch-22" of this dilemma.[clarification needed] This vicious cycle is common in neurotic lifestyles.'
Remind you of any particular group of people?
Ha Ha , you got your first year politics for dummies book out
I'd put that down to you being demented, from my earlier list.
Edit - I mean the British informal definition, not necessarily suffering from dementia. ie
BRITISH informal behaving irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement. "she was demented with worry" synonyms: mad, insane, deranged, out of one's mind, not in one's right mind, crazed, lunatic, unbalanced, unhinged, unstable, disturbed, distracted, as mad as a hatter, as mad as a March hare, stark mad;
malcolmG - I see you've posted more insults on the last thread. Including calling me a "fruitcake".
Can I ask you something? What are you hoping to achieve by posting personal insults and abuse toward anyone who disagrees with you?
(1) Are you trying to convince them of your arguments? Or... (2) Are you hoping to make it so unpleasant they decide it's not worth it, shut up and stop posting?
It was not an insult , merely a factual observation. If you post like a fruitcake , with fantasy ideas, then it is incumbent on me to point out the stupidity of it. You are easily upset and seem to have some kind of inferiority complex to assume it was an insult , suggest you grow up or grow a pair.
I see you didn't answer my question.
Let me remind you what you said on the last thread, you said; "Dear Dear we have real fruitcakes on here. You need to see a doctor."
You are suggesting I have mental health problems. You say this is not an insult. Because I've queried this you've followed up, now, with some comments about my personality. But I've never met you, and you've never met me, so you're saying this purely because you disagree with what I wrote on an online forum.
Do you realise how ridiculous that is?
If you want to convince people you're right, try debating with them respectfully and rationally. This is what Stuart Dickson does (who I have a lot of respect for) and he posts plenty of enlightened points that make me think.
If you want to intimidate or silence people you disagree with you, let me clear: I will not be silenced. I will continue to contribute to this debate whenever I feel fit. No matter what you post.
What I won't do is engage you in debate, or respond to any of your future posts, if all you have to contribute is insults. I will just ignore you and let those insults speak for themselves.
Others can then make their mind up about you - including the moderators.
"I see no good reason why we should let people who are in favour of sharia law into this country because someone who thinks that it would be great is going to find it very hard to accept some of our fundamental values e.g. equality for women or for gays or freedom of religion because sharia law is so clearly against these things."
That is the fundamental problem with Labour's approach to this: they don't seem to understand that if you invite in bad ideas, they will spread, they will corrode our public space, they will crowd out better ideas, they will be taught to youngsters in our schools. Labour and the Tories and the Lib Dems have not only let in bad ideas but then told the rest of us that we must respect those ideas and that all ideas are equally valid and that while women are equal it's OK if some of your neighbours don't treat women equally because, hey, they are doing it peacefully. But they're not, are they - as we've now found out."
Are you suggesting only people who hold your values should be allowed into this country? What about those already here should they also conform?
Perhaps when you get a moment you could pen for us all what values we should hold? It strikes me as about as fascist as you can get and about as far away from what I understand liberal values to be
Is nationality an acceptable way to filter immigrants?? Could we, for instance, have a moratorium on immigrants from Pakistan, even if they were spouses of British nationals? Or a quota?
I assume that the UK government could refuse economic migrants from a given country unless a Treaty to the contrary is in place... Regarding family members, again there may be Treaty obligations that would have to be addressed first... Others would have more expertise on this area than I can offer...
Of course, refugees seeking asylum are a different category...
A quota addresses the scale of immigration not the 'quality'....
At the risk of oversimplifying the debate, there seems to be a view held by some that uncontrolled numbers and a failure to integrate is bad but controlled numbers and integration is good or at least tolerable... Fair enough, but I haven't seen any define acceptable integration.... Speak the language and respect the law are straight forward but adopting the culture and not living near to one another becomes increasingly difficult to apply.... For example, should someone from a culture that respects the elderly and would care for their elderly parents in the home be expected to pack them of to a poorly run care home in order to adopt the British way of behaving?
I'd put that down to you being demented, from my earlier list.
Edit - I mean the British informal definition, not necessarily suffering from dementia. ie
BRITISH informal behaving irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement. "she was demented with worry" synonyms: mad, insane, deranged, out of one's mind, not in one's right mind, crazed, lunatic, unbalanced, unhinged, unstable, disturbed, distracted, as mad as a hatter, as mad as a March hare, stark mad;
JJ, nearly describes you and you can only hope you get up to that level one day, gives you something to aspire to.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
Thank you. On this point - "Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination" I would say this.
No-one (outside the EU) has a right to come and live here. So there is no punishment involved in not letting people in who can only come here by our invitation. So if we think that people who follow a particular religion or sect or ideology are on balance unlikely to fit in with our mores I don't think it is discrimination to say no. Or, to put it another way, discriminating on the basis of something relevant is desirable. Essential even. Saying that we want immigrants who will add something positive to our nation rather than bring something negative is the only right way to look at immigration.
The problem has been that people think that any sort of discrimination is bad. But it depends on why you are discriminating. Discriminating because I don't like the colour and shape of your eyes is absurd; discriminating because I don't like your views about integrity (for instance, in the case of an interview for a job involving money) is essential.
In the past we assumed that people who emigrated to another country did so in part because they wanted to leave their old culture behind and adopt their new homeland. But I think it is fair to say that when we see groups of people who have firmly held views which say that you must not adapt to your homeland, you must reject its values and despise its people - as was taught in some of the Birmingham Trojan Horse schools - you are entitled as a country to say: no thanks. We won't have you here.
And the corollary is that when we do let people in from a very different background to ours we have to be utterly ruthless in ensuring that we make it clear that those different and incompatible values can have no place here. The failing in this country has been not to do this over the last 20-30 years and into that vacuum has rushed the Islamist ideology.
Even if the Scots vote "No" there will be more powers moving to the Scottish Parliament and therefore a wider range of matters on which the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland MP's cannot vote.Meanwhile if nothing changes Scottish MP's will continue to be able to vote on all English,Welsh and Northern Irish matters.This hardly seems fair.It's the right time to settle the West Lothian question.The first step is s is to say that the Scottish Westminster Mp's cannot vote on the domestic matters of other countries of the Union. Since this will leave Scottish MP's with little to do the next logical step is to give Max Devo on domestic matters to the English,Welsh and Northern Ireland parliaments respectively Remaining non domestic powers such as defense foreign affairs, infrastructure would then be dealt with by a small elected second chamber of all the nations. And whilst tidying up things, the current second chamber,the anachronism of the 800 plus House of Lords can be abolished.
[older stuff snipped]You genuinely believe that from the context of the statement that the start of the generation mentioned could be construed as any other time than when the statement was written?
Edit to add. I note you have taken generation to definitively be 25 years, not the 20-25 given in the link, otherwise you would have been unable to dance on your pin head.
Oh yes, I do. It's a matter of point of view. If you have been waiting a long time for indyref, and many folk have grown old and died and their grandchildren grown up, something like he 1970s is the natural perspective. You may well have a different one starting from when the indy issue came onto the wider British scene, ca. 2011, and that is also perfectly reasonable for you.
"I see no good reason why we should let people who are in favour of sharia law into this country because someone who thinks that it would be great is going to find it very hard to accept some of our fundamental values e.g. equality for women or for gays or freedom of religion because sharia law is so clearly against these things."
That is the fundamental problem with Labour's approach to this: they don't seem to understand that if you invite in bad ideas, they will spread, they will corrode our public space, they will crowd out better ideas, they will be taught to youngsters in our schools. Labour and the Tories and the Lib Dems have not only let in bad ideas but then told the rest of us that we must respect those ideas and that all ideas are equally valid and that while women are equal it's OK if some of your neighbours don't treat women equally because, hey, they are doing it peacefully. But they're not, are they - as we've now found out."
Are you suggesting only people who hold your values should be allowed into this country? What about those already here should they also conform?
Perhaps when you get a moment you could pen for us all what values we should hold? It strikes me as about as fascist as you can get and about as far away from what I understand liberal values to be
Any problems when Pinochet was allowed into the country? We as a nation make these decisions every day, the only thing open to debate is the scale. It's not going to be easy, but it has to be done.
malcolmG - I see you've posted more insults on the last thread. Including calling me a "fruitcake".
Can I ask you something? What are you hoping to achieve by posting personal insults and abuse toward anyone who disagrees with you?
(1) Are you trying to convince them of your arguments? Or... (2) Are you hoping to make it so unpleasant they decide it's not worth it, shut up and stop posting?
It was not an insult , merely a factual observation. If you post like a fruitcake , with fantasy ideas, then it is incumbent on me to point out the stupidity of it. You are easily upset and seem to have some kind of inferiority complex to assume it was an insult , suggest you grow up or grow a pair.
I see you didn't answer my question.
Let me remind you what you said on the last thread, you said; "Dear Dear we have real fruitcakes on here. You need to see a doctor."
You are suggesting I have mental health problems. You say this is not an insult. Because I've queried this you've followed up, now, with some comments about my personality. But I've never met you, and you've never met me, so you're saying this purely because you disagree with what I wrote on an online forum.
Do you realise how ridiculous that is?
If you want to convince people you're right, try debating with them respectfully and rationally. This is what Stuart Dickson does (who I have a lot of respect for) and he posts plenty of enlightened points that make me think.
If you want to intimidate or silence people you disagree with you, let me clear: I will not be silenced. I will continue to contribute to this debate whenever I feel fit. No matter what you post.
What I won't do is engage you in debate, or respond to any of your future posts, if all you have to contribute is insults. I will just ignore you and let those insults speak for themselves.
Others can then make their mind up about you - including the moderators.
Take the lemon out of your arse and have your humour bypass removed. I can only presume you are a sensitive soul who has led a sheltered life and not participate much with normal public life. If what I wrote has upset you then you need to get out more and see the real world.
On the wider issue of whether Labour will hold onto its 'Labour' seats in Scotland - and not lose them either to the SNP or a new labour/socialist splinter group - this may be of interest (as well as referring to the two unfortunate recent political TV ads for No):
"I see no good reason why we should let people who are in favour of sharia law into this country because someone who thinks that it would be great is going to find it very hard to accept some of our fundamental values e.g. equality for women or for gays or freedom of religion because sharia law is so clearly against these things."
That is the fundamental problem with Labour's approach to this: they don't seem to understand that if you invite in bad ideas, they will spread, they will corrode our public space, they will crowd out better ideas, they will be taught to youngsters in our schools. Labour and the Tories and the Lib Dems have not only let in bad ideas but then told the rest of us that we must respect those ideas and that all ideas are equally valid and that while women are equal it's OK if some of your neighbours don't treat women equally because, hey, they are doing it peacefully. But they're not, are they - as we've now found out."
Are you suggesting only people who hold your values should be allowed into this country? What about those already here should they also conform?
Perhaps when you get a moment you could pen for us all what values we should hold? It strikes me as about as fascist as you can get and about as far away from what I understand liberal values to be
Any problems when Pinochet was allowed into the country? We as a nation make these decisions every day, the only thing open to debate is the scale. It's not going to be easy, but it has to be done.
I thought you said you were going to improve the site and go play tig on the M25 earlier.
[older stuff snipped]You genuinely believe that from the context of the statement that the start of the generation mentioned could be construed as any other time than when the statement was written?
Edit to add. I note you have taken generation to definitively be 25 years, not the 20-25 given in the link, otherwise you would have been unable to dance on your pin head.
Oh yes, I do. It's a matter of point of view. If you have been waiting a long time for indyref, and many folk have grown old and died and their grandchildren grown up, something like he 1970s is the natural perspective. You may well have a different one starting from when the indy issue came onto the wider British scene, ca. 2011, and that is also perfectly reasonable for you.
Fair enough, but I'll stick with my view that you are in a tiny minority that believes that statement does not mean 20-25 years from now.
So touched to get so many members of my former #clacton association come with me.
Interesting report from Breitbart this morning. Jacob Rees Mogg apparently denied he was thinking of going to UKIP but renewed calls for a UKIP tory pact.
Breitbart then reported there was evidence that kippers and tories are talking informally about deals locally in some constituencies.
I want to pick up on a point made by Nick Palmer yesterday evening: "For example, I'd dislike living under Sharia law, but I don't mind someone peacefully disagreeing and thinking it'd be great. "
I see no good reason why we should let people who are in favour of sharia law into this country because someone who thinks that it would be great is going to find it very hard to accept some of our fundamental values e.g. equality for women or for gays or freedom of religion because sharia law is so clearly against these things. It is one reason why Canadian Muslim women were so vociferously against a Canadian government proposal a few years ago to impose sharia law on Muslims in their country. They understood - as NP appears not to - why it was such a bad idea, for them, and made clear that they had emigrated to Canada to get away from this culture not have it imposed on them by dunderheaded liberals.
Why invite people in who think in a way that is fundamentally contrary and hostile to our basic values? What on earth does NP think this will do for social cohesion and our sense of community?
That is the fundamental problem with Labour's approach to this: they don't seem to understand that if you invite in bad ideas, they will spread, they will corrode our public space, they will crowd out better ideas, they will be taught to youngsters in our schools. Labour and the Tories and the Lib Dems have not only let in bad ideas but then told the rest of us that we must respect those ideas and that all ideas are equally valid and that while women are equal it's OK if some of your neighbours don't treat women equally because, hey, they are doing it peacefully. But they're not, are they - as we've now found out.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
We cannot have more than one set of basic laws for the people - it leads only to confusion, bias or persecution.
The proposition below was that someone "in favour of" Sharia law should not be admitted as an immigrant... So should someone be excluded for holding that opinion, even arguing for it and working for it through the democratic process but perfectly willing to accept that it isn't used in the UK unless and until Parliament so decides?
Interesting stuff from David H.The Tory candidate selected will reveal whether or not they have a chance.I fancy it will end up a choice of Tea-Parties.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
Thank you. On this point - "Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination" I would say this.
No-one (outside the EU) has a right to come and live here. So there is no punishment involved in not letting people in who can only come here by our invitation. So if we think that people who follow a particular religion or sect or ideology are on balance unlikely to fit in with our mores I don't think it is discrimination to say no. Or, to put it another way, discriminating on the basis of something relevant is desirable. Essential even. Saying that we want immigrants who will add something positive to our nation rather than bring something negative is the only right way to look at immigration.
The problem has been that people think that any sort of discrimination is bad. But it depends on why you are discriminating. Discriminating because I don't like the colour and shape of your eyes is absurd; discriminating because I don't like your views about integrity (for instance, in the case of an interview for a job involving money) is essential.
In the past we assumed that people who emigrated to another country did so in part because they wanted to leave their old culture behind and adopt their new homeland. But I think it is fair to say that when we see groups of people who have firmly held views which say that you must not adapt to your homeland, you must reject its values and despise its people - as was taught in some of the Birmingham Trojan Horse schools - you are entitled as a country to say: no thanks. We won't have you here.
And the corollary is that when we do let people in from a very different background to ours we have to be utterly ruthless in ensuring that we make it clear that those different and incompatible values can have no place here. The failing in this country has been not to do this over the last 20-30 years and into that vacuum has rushed the Islamist ideology.
''So should someone be excluded for holding that opinion, even arguing for it and working for it through the democratic process but perfectly willing to accept that it isn't used in the UK unless and until Parliament so decides?''
Good point, but we could avoid this debate by having a points system that gave nul points to countries where there was strong support for Sharia law. That way people from, say, rural Pakistan never get enough points to be allowed in, even if they are married to a British citizen.
"I see no good reason why we should let people who are in favour of sharia law into this country because someone who thinks that it would be great is going to find it very hard to accept some of our fundamental values e.g. equality for women or for gays or freedom of religion because sharia law is so clearly against these things."
"
Are you suggesting only people who hold your values should be allowed into this country? What about those already here should they also conform?
Perhaps when you get a moment you could pen for us all what values we should hold? It strikes me as about as fascist as you can get and about as far away from what I understand liberal values to be
I am not telling people what to think and you are misreading my posts if that is what you think. I do think that we need to think hard about who we let into the country and how we fully integrate them.
On the question of liberal values, we are subject to the ECHR which encapsulates basic Western values and in 2003 the Court ruled that sharia law was incompatible with the ECHR.
A summary of the Court's reasoning follows:-
The Court first noted that freedom of thought, of religion, of expression and of association as guaranteed by the Convention could not deprive the authorities of a State in which an association, through its activities, jeopardised that State’s institutions, of the right to protect those institutions. It necessarily followed that a political party whose leaders incited to violence or put forward a policy which failed to respect democracy or which was aimed at the destruction of democracy and the flouting of the rights and freedoms recognised in a democracy, could not lay claim to the Convention’s protection against penalties imposed on those grounds. Such penalties could even, where there was a sufficiently established and imminent danger for democracy, take the form of preventive intervention.
The Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”.
According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
Given this, why shouldn't a country take the view that people who hold strongly to a belief in sharia might not be suitable immigrants?
I want to pick up on a point made by Nick Palmer yesterday evening: "For example, I'd dislike living under Sharia law, but I don't mind someone peacefully disagreeing and thinking it'd be great. "
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
There is a major difference between an opinion and a law.
It should be made plain to all immigrants that Sharia Law, FGM, etc is illegal. also covering of the face should be illegal. If you do not like these laws then you can leave.
We cannot have more than one set of basic laws for the people - it leads only to confusion, bias or persecution.
Sharia law isn't illegal in civil cases (allowed as private arbitration, as are Jewish Beth Din courts).
UKIP aren't a serious party anyway, so should be locked out of any TV debates.
Generally I think the debates should just be for those that have a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister (I.E. leader of Lab and Con)
On other matters, I should think we'll have some IndyRef polling in the Sunday's tonight.
Squeaky bum time for BT?
On debates:
I would suggest that qualification for debates should be on the basis of number of deposits retained at the previous general election. If a party cannot retain deposits in 326 seats, they should have no platform in the debates for a subsequent election.
I dislike Galloway rather a lot. That said, physically assaulting people, whether private individuals or those in the public eye, for expressing an opinion is unacceptable.
I dislike Galloway rather a lot. That said, physically assaulting people, whether private individuals or those in the public eye, for expressing an opinion is unacceptable.
Morning MD, yes even though he is not very nice and upsets lots of people it is not acceptable to be beating people up for any reason.
UKIP aren't a serious party anyway, so should be locked out of any TV debates.
Generally I think the debates should just be for those that have a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister (I.E. leader of Lab and Con)
On other matters, I should think we'll have some IndyRef polling in the Sunday's tonight.
Squeaky bum time for BT?
On debates:
I would suggest that qualification for debates should be on the basis of number of deposits retained at the previous general election. If a party cannot retain deposits in 326 seats, they should have no platform in the debates for a subsequent election.
Transparent, and democratic.
You're viewing the debates too much in a vacuum I think, it ties in with a much wider question about election campaign coverage.
"Any problems when Pinochet was allowed into the country? We as a nation make these decisions every day, the only thing open to debate is the scale. It's not going to be easy, but it has to be done."
I was particularly surprised that the post came from Cyclefree who these last few weeks has been lauding the wonderful freedoms of thought and expression that exist for all religions and creeds in Israel but not (apparently) for their surrounding Arab neighbours. So to hear him/her now advocating a system the like of which only actually exists in Saudi Arabia is a surprise
UKIP aren't a serious party anyway, so should be locked out of any TV debates.
Generally I think the debates should just be for those that have a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister (I.E. leader of Lab and Con)
On other matters, I should think we'll have some IndyRef polling in the Sunday's tonight.
Squeaky bum time for BT?
On debates:
I would suggest that qualification for debates should be on the basis of number of deposits retained at the previous general election. If a party cannot retain deposits in 326 seats, they should have no platform in the debates for a subsequent election.
Transparent, and democratic.
You're viewing the debates too much in a vacuum I think, it ties in with a much wider question about election campaign coverage.
The same principle could be applied to other aspects of election coverage.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
And the corollary is that when we do let people in from a very different background to ours we have to be utterly ruthless in ensuring that we make it clear that those different and incompatible values can have no place here. The failing in this country has been not to do this over the last 20-30 years and into that vacuum has rushed the Islamist ideology.
So should the UK explicitly refute Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights...
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
A genuine question, is your suggestion that a person in the UK should not have the right to freedom of religion? Is the alternative not to be utterly ruthless in applying the law of the land without exception... In other words, hold whatever beliefs, values, religion you want, that's not the business of the state, but step outside the law, including incitement, and you will be punished...
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
And the corollary is that when we do let people in from a very different background to ours we have to be utterly ruthless in ensuring that we make it clear that those different and incompatible values can have no place here. The failing in this country has been not to do this over the last 20-30 years and into that vacuum has rushed the Islamist ideology.
So should the UK explicitly refute Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights...
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
A genuine question, is your suggestion that a person in the UK should not have the right to freedom of religion? Is the alternative not to be utterly ruthless in applying the law of the land without exception... In other words, hold whatever beliefs, values, religion you want, that's not the business of the state, but step outside the law, including incitement, and you will be punished...
I would suggest that all immigrants applying for citizenship sign up to support the Declaration of human rights including equal rights for women and minorities and the right to apostasy and freedom of (and from!) religion.
The attacker allegedly called Mr Galloway "a Hitler" during the assault. After the attack Mr Galloway made a statement at Notting Hill police station before being taken to hospital for treatment.
Reports that he suffered a broken jaw are not accurate, the MP's spokesman said.
"Any problems when Pinochet was allowed into the country? We as a nation make these decisions every day, the only thing open to debate is the scale. It's not going to be easy, but it has to be done."
I was particularly surprised that the post came from Cyclefree who these last few weeks has been lauding the wonderful freedoms of thought and expression that exist for all religions and creeds in Israel but not (apparently) for their surrounding Arab neighbours. So to hear him/her now advocating a system the like of which only actually exists in Saudi Arabia is a surprise
"I would suggest that all immigrants applying for citizenship sign up to support the Declaration of human rights including equal rights for women and minorities and the right to apostasy and freedom of (and from!) religion."
Perhaps Mike should impose a similar requirement on all those wishing to post on PB, Foxy.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
The problem arises that when we lean over backwards to allow the expression of religion of immigrants, we tend to inhibit the religious opinions of our own people.
Tory MPs have warned the party they would refuse to campaign against their former colleague Douglas Carswell in the by-election triggered by his defection to Ukip.
The Times reports some unnamed Conservative MPs have suggested the party should leave Mr Carswell to stand without a Tory challenger in the seat.
One MP told the paper: “Douglas is a Conservative. Where is the appetite going to be from our activists to fight him?
“What are we going to say on the doorsteps? Vote for our brand of Conservatism, not his?
“I came into politics to stop socialists ruining our country, not to fight other Conservatives. It is going to be absolutely miserable.”
The comments come as Ukip's treasurer warned more conservative MPs are “likely” to defect to the party.
Stuart Wheeler, the spread-betting tycoon and Ukip donor, said it was “odds-on” that more Tories were about to leave the party.
A Ukip source told the BBC that the party is also in talks with between five and ten Labour MPs about a similar move to that of Douglas Carswell, who on Thursday announced his defection to the euro-sceptic party, triggering a by-election.
UKIP aren't a serious party anyway, so should be locked out of any TV debates.
Generally I think the debates should just be for those that have a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister (I.E. leader of Lab and Con)
On other matters, I should think we'll have some IndyRef polling in the Sunday's tonight.
Squeaky bum time for BT?
On debates:
I would suggest that qualification for debates should be on the basis of number of deposits retained at the previous general election. If a party cannot retain deposits in 326 seats, they should have no platform in the debates for a subsequent election.
Transparent, and democratic.
You're viewing the debates too much in a vacuum I think, it ties in with a much wider question about election campaign coverage.
The same principle could be applied to other aspects of election coverage.
Hmm, on that measure, it'd be Con, Lab, Lib as the major parties.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
And the corollary is that when we do let people in from a very different background to ours we have to be utterly ruthless in ensuring that we make it clear that those different and incompatible values can have no place here. The failing in this country has been not to do this over the last 20-30 years and into that vacuum has rushed the Islamist ideology.
So should the UK explicitly refute Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights...
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
A genuine question, is your suggestion that a person in the UK should not have the right to freedom of religion? Is the alternative not to be utterly ruthless in applying the law of the land without exception... In other words, hold whatever beliefs, values, religion you want, that's not the business of the state, but step outside the law, including incitement, and you will be punished...
I would suggest that all immigrants applying for citizenship sign up to support the Declaration of human rights including equal rights for women and minorities and the right to apostasy and freedom of (and from!) religion.
Can't argue with that... Essentially symbolic but would underline the ethos of the country to which they wish to move and would avoid the need to create a statement of "British values"... Could be positioned as a contract with the British people the breaking of which would bring to an end their right to remain in the country... No doubt there are lots of legal considerations here but any response to Rotherham with regards to immigration is going to have to be done carefully if it is to be effective...
Tory MPs have warned the party they would refuse to campaign against their former colleague Douglas Carswell in the by-election triggered by his defection to Ukip.
The Times reports some unnamed Conservative MPs have suggested the party should leave Mr Carswell to stand without a Tory challenger in the seat.
One MP told the paper: “Douglas is a Conservative. Where is the appetite going to be from our activists to fight him?
“What are we going to say on the doorsteps? Vote for our brand of Conservatism, not his?
“I came into politics to stop socialists ruining our country, not to fight other Conservatives. It is going to be absolutely miserable.”
The comments come as Ukip's treasurer warned more conservative MPs are “likely” to defect to the party.
Stuart Wheeler, the spread-betting tycoon and Ukip donor, said it was “odds-on” that more Tories were about to leave the party.
A Ukip source told the BBC that the party is also in talks with between five and ten Labour MPs about a similar move to that of Douglas Carswell, who on Thursday announced his defection to the euro-sceptic party, triggering a by-election.
Source: PoliticsHome
When they show some spine and add their names I'll be more impressed. Sounds like the mythical eight defectors we've heard so much about over the years.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
And the corollary is that when we do let people in from a very different background to ours we have to be utterly ruthless in ensuring that we make it clear that those different and incompatible values can have no place here. The failing in this country has been not to do this over the last 20-30 years and into that vacuum has rushed the Islamist ideology.
So should the UK explicitly refute Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights...
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
A genuine question, is your suggestion that a person in the UK should not have the right to freedom of religion? Is the alternative not to be utterly ruthless in applying the law of the land without exception... In other words, hold whatever beliefs, values, religion you want, that's not the business of the state, but step outside the law, including incitement, and you will be punished...
I would suggest that all immigrants applying for citizenship sign up to support the Declaration of human rights including equal rights for women and minorities and the right to apostasy and freedom of (and from!) religion.
Perhaps we could require all MPs to sign up to that too.
Tory MPs have warned the party they would refuse to campaign against their former colleague Douglas Carswell in the by-election triggered by his defection to Ukip.
The Times reports some unnamed Conservative MPs have suggested the party should leave Mr Carswell to stand without a Tory challenger in the seat.
One MP told the paper: “Douglas is a Conservative. Where is the appetite going to be from our activists to fight him?
“What are we going to say on the doorsteps? Vote for our brand of Conservatism, not his?
“I came into politics to stop socialists ruining our country, not to fight other Conservatives. It is going to be absolutely miserable.”
The comments come as Ukip's treasurer warned more conservative MPs are “likely” to defect to the party.
Stuart Wheeler, the spread-betting tycoon and Ukip donor, said it was “odds-on” that more Tories were about to leave the party.
A Ukip source told the BBC that the party is also in talks with between five and ten Labour MPs about a similar move to that of Douglas Carswell, who on Thursday announced his defection to the euro-sceptic party, triggering a by-election.
Source: PoliticsHome
When they show some spine and add their names I'll be more impressed. Sounds like the mythical eight defectors we've heard so much about over the years.
Not putting up a candidate would be seen as doing a de facto deal with UKIP. Which would lead to a raft of other defections. So of course the party has to put up a candidate.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
And the corollary is that when we do let people in from a very different background to ours we have to be utterly ruthless in ensuring that we make it clear that those different and incompatible values can have no place here. The failing in this country has been not to do this over the last 20-30 years and into that vacuum has rushed the Islamist ideology.
So should the UK explicitly refute Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights...
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
A genuine question, is your suggestion that a person in the UK should not have the right to freedom of religion? Is the alternative not to be utterly ruthless in applying the law of the land without exception... In other words, hold whatever beliefs, values, religion you want, that's not the business of the state, but step outside the law, including incitement, and you will be punished...
Of course I'm in favour of freedom of religion. And that also means the freedom not to have religion. So of course Muslims can practice their faith in this country. What they shouldn't do is threaten Muslims who don't want to be Muslims with death. Quite how you reconcile that with the fact that the Koran does, apparently (I'm not a theologian) say that the punishment for apostasy is death, I don't know. Something may have to give way.
My view is that the view that apostates should be punished with death must give way - certainly in this country - because you can have no genuine freedom of thought if your right not to believe in a God leads to such threats.
Who decides the actual day of the by-election in Clacton?
Whilst there must be a time limit for the election to be held once Carswell has applied for his Chiltern Hundred seat, I think there is some flexibility about the actual Thursday chosen. Is it the incumbent in a personal capacity, his previous party or his new party that get to choose the day?
"Tests and declarations are not worth the paper they are written on"
Not necessarily. I was always impressed with the old USA visa waver form which included, nd may still include for all I know, seemingly daft questions like, Are you involved in organised crime or the trafficking in narcotics? (or words to that effect). Such a daft question who is going to answer, "Yes". However, there was a nice twist because if you got caught involved in either crime or drugs inside the USA they could, if they wanted, promptly throw you out of the country without trial or appeal because you had lied to get in.
It should not beyond the wit of our legal community to devise a similar declaration relating to human rights issues as well as crime which everyone arriving on these shores has to sign and which includes the acceptance that is they breach the declaration they are liable to be removed without appeal. No signature, no entry; breach the commitment instant removal.
Mind you none of that will help with the problems of Rotherham where the police and council officials collude if not in the actual offences then certainly in covering up their scope. Has anybody heard from the Home Secretary yet?
"Any problems when Pinochet was allowed into the country? We as a nation make these decisions every day, the only thing open to debate is the scale. It's not going to be easy, but it has to be done."
I was particularly surprised that the post came from Cyclefree who these last few weeks has been lauding the wonderful freedoms of thought and expression that exist for all religions and creeds in Israel but not (apparently) for their surrounding Arab neighbours. So to hear him/her now advocating a system the like of which only actually exists in Saudi Arabia is a surprise
I do not and have never advocated a system like the one in Saudi Arabia. We have freedom of thought here and freedom of religion. Saudi Arabia does not. Indeed it explicitly refused to sign up to the UN Convention on Human Rights precisely because of the articles dealing with freedom of religion. That is one reason why I'm perturbed that Saudi textbooks have been used in some Islamic schools in Britain, that children in the Trojan Horse Birmingham schools were sent for school trips to Saudi Arabia and that, according to the reports, there seemed to be a concerted attempt to impose Saudi values (which I consider abhorrent) on British schoolchildren.
Re Cyclefree's post about keeping out of the country those with values he/she thinks contravene ours.
In Beirut the Christian and Muslim areas are pretty well defined. Neither area is better or worse and the line dividing the areas meanders. Muslims move freely in the Christian areas and vice versa. The only way to tell if you're in a Christan or Muslim area are the signs above the shops and advertising hoardings.
On the Muslim side the shop signs are written in Arabic on the Christian side they use the Roman alphabet
The big difference are the hoardings. On the Christian side they are full of posters of girls in very skimpy bikinis. The Muslim side have exactly the same posters but with swimsuits painted on.
The Tories HAVE to run against Carswell - and if his association has gone UKIP with him then they will have to parachute in Spadtivists from elsewhere. Carswell defecting is bad, much of the local association also defecting is far worse, not running "our kind of Conservatism" against "his kind" is suicidal.
UKIP are a clear insurgency against Cameroonism and the damage they are doing electorally is bad enough. MPs defecting, taking their activist base with them AND not having the heart to campaign against them is running up the white flag and accepting that actually UKIP are right. It would be the SDP all over again.
Whenever I see some unfortunate child flown halfway across the world to London for life saving treatment, I wonder why. The journey usually bypasses many wealthy countries with excellent hospitals. It usually involves one child and leaves behind or flies over thousands of others dying of starvation. The MSM make a big play of it.
Are we being "played" or am i just some kind of paranoid monster?
I've seen quite a few people sharpening their knives on the off chance that Carswell loses this by-election along the lines of -'UKIP will be finished' etc. Silly people trying to play with expectations. It's like saying universal suffrage was finished because the Chartists failed. Events come and go, trends are long term. If they lose, they will still have a net gain of an excellent politician, who did the honorable thing, fought and lost. The press will crow, it will be tomorrow's chip papers, and Carswell (assuming he doesn't lose so badly they stand someone else) will get another go come election time.
UKIP aren't a serious party anyway, so should be locked out of any TV debates.
Generally I think the debates should just be for those that have a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister (I.E. leader of Lab and Con)
On other matters, I should think we'll have some IndyRef polling in the Sunday's tonight.
Squeaky bum time for BT?
On debates:
I would suggest that qualification for debates should be on the basis of number of deposits retained at the previous general election. If a party cannot retain deposits in 326 seats, they should have no platform in the debates for a subsequent election.
Transparent, and democratic.
You're viewing the debates too much in a vacuum I think, it ties in with a much wider question about election campaign coverage.
The same principle could be applied to other aspects of election coverage.
Hmm, on that measure, it'd be Con, Lab, Lib as the major parties.
Which would lead to the ludicrous situation where the Lib Dems would be counted as a major party whilst UKIP - who could well end up getting twice as many votes as the Lib Dems - would be excluded. Ridiculous.
Miss Cyclefree, the undoubted supremacy of universal secular law should be a given. It's not. The media cravenly self-imposed a blasphemy law over the Jesus and Mo cartoon (but only for Mohammed), and this weakness to impose a small number of critical British values has certainly not helped the large numbers of immigrants from far afield to integrate.
If Cameron is pressured to debate with UKIP he should stick to his pledge in May to only debate UKIP if the Greens are also present, fair enough considering the Greens already had an MP before UKIP and outpolled the LDs in the Euros. Under FPTP he cannot afford to potentially lose voters to his right if Miliband does not also have to face a party that could cost him votes to his left
Who decides the actual day of the by-election in Clacton?
Whilst there must be a time limit for the election to be held once Carswell has applied for his Chiltern Hundred seat, I think there is some flexibility about the actual Thursday chosen. Is it the incumbent in a personal capacity, his previous party or his new party that get to choose the day?
I believe it's the Prime Minister/government/Conservative Party. I would think they'll move the writ when Parliament returns on Monday?
I would have thought they'd want a quick election, but with IndyRef and the conference's, we're probably looking at Thursday 16th or 23rd October?
Who decides the actual day of the by-election in Clacton?
Whilst there must be a time limit for the election to be held once Carswell has applied for his Chiltern Hundred seat, I think there is some flexibility about the actual Thursday chosen. Is it the incumbent in a personal capacity, his previous party or his new party that get to choose the day?
It's based on the date set in the writ being moved through parliament. This is conventionally done by the party the MP formerly belonged to, but can be proposed (or potentially amended) by any MP, usually only if they feel a party is playing tactics by delaying etc.
Defeating a writ is a bit of a nuclear option though, since it means it can't be moved again in the same parliamentary session (i.e. a parliamentary year).
So once parliament resumes (or is recalled I suppose) then if someone wants it quick (and the earliest it could be if someone moves it immediately is the day after Tory conference ends) they can propose it. If someone wants it later they can try amending that proposal, and in absolute extremis someone could defeat it and set it back to the General election (this is very very unlikely).
UKIP won't have any control since they've got no MPs currently.
Who decides the actual day of the by-election in Clacton?
Whilst there must be a time limit for the election to be held once Carswell has applied for his Chiltern Hundred seat, I think there is some flexibility about the actual Thursday chosen. Is it the incumbent in a personal capacity, his previous party or his new party that get to choose the day?
There was a discussion about this when Carswell resigned - the Tories get to call it on a date of their choosing - consensus was earliest likely to be a week after their conference or later if they hold an open primary.
On electoral reform, of course the Tories opposed AV vociferously, so I doubt they will rush towards PR, however, if and when we get a Labour-LD Coalition a referendum on PR would almost certainly be the price of LD support. I have no great problem with that, of other major western democracies only the US and Canada also still use FPTP, and the US at least has more extensive primaries. Italy, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Israel, New Zealand etc all use PR, Australia uses AV and France the second ballot
Mr. Tyndall, worth pointing out the Lib Dems are a party of government, which is no small thing.
Party of lying backstabbing nomarks is more appropriate MD. How could anyone ever trust anything they say in future knowing that as soon as they see the cash they will tear up their principles, manifesto and anything else required. You can never trust a liar.
UKIP aren't a serious party anyway, so should be locked out of any TV debates.
Generally I think the debates should just be for those that have a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister (I.E. leader of Lab and Con)
On other matters, I should think we'll have some IndyRef polling in the Sunday's tonight.
Squeaky bum time for BT?
On debates:
I would suggest that qualification for debates should be on the basis of number of deposits retained at the previous general election. If a party cannot retain deposits in 326 seats, they should have no platform in the debates for a subsequent election.
Transparent, and democratic.
You're viewing the debates too much in a vacuum I think, it ties in with a much wider question about election campaign coverage.
The same principle could be applied to other aspects of election coverage.
Hmm, on that measure, it'd be Con, Lab, Lib as the major parties.
Which would lead to the ludicrous situation where the Lib Dems would be counted as a major party whilst UKIP - who could well end up getting twice as many votes as the Lib Dems - would be excluded. Ridiculous.
Any measure you have that's heavily based on previous results inherently carries with it that possibility.
The Tories HAVE to run against Carswell - and if his association has gone UKIP with him then they will have to parachute in Spadtivists from elsewhere. Carswell defecting is bad, much of the local association also defecting is far worse, not running "our kind of Conservatism" against "his kind" is suicidal.
UKIP are a clear insurgency against Cameroonism and the damage they are doing electorally is bad enough. MPs defecting, taking their activist base with them AND not having the heart to campaign against them is running up the white flag and accepting that actually UKIP are right. It would be the SDP all over again.
I said a while ago here that UKIP would one day replace The Conservative Party; I still believe that, and the momentum seems to be increasing. The Tories have let themselves be outflanked for the first time in their history. You can't 'middle-flank' -look at the Lib Dems. Look at Rotherham, look at Stafford, look at EU policy -who wants to look for votes in the 'middle' of that?
Scottish friends and colleagues of mine have complained that The Saltire has been politicised -that you can't use it or say something like 'Let's support Scotland in the upcoming [insert event here]' without it coming out sounding like a nationalist statement. Sadly, even the notion of positivity itself seems to have been tainted by the obnoxious, bitter people who've appropriated the word 'yes'.
LOL, what a bunch of Tory jessies you must hang out with , tell them to get off their bellies and drop the inferiority complexes. You seem to be getting mixed up with national support and "nationalist" like your stupid friends who do not understand the difference.
Interesting things, inferiority complexes:
'A secondary inferiority feeling relates to an adult's experience of being unable to reach a subconscious, fictional final goal of subjective security and success to compensate for the inferiority feelings. The perceived distance from that goal would lead to a negative/depressed feeling that could then prompt the recall of the original inferiority feeling; this composite of inferiority feelings could be experienced as overwhelming. The goal invented to relieve the original, primary feeling of inferiority which actually causes the secondary feeling of inferiority is the "catch-22" of this dilemma.[clarification needed] This vicious cycle is common in neurotic lifestyles.'
Remind you of any particular group of people?
Ha Ha , you got your first year politics for dummies book out
Psychology for dummies actually -but thanks for confirming my thesis.
Mr. G, I think it's quite plain I'm neither a Lib Dem nor vaguely pro-Lib Dem, but we cannot assign debate places just to people we like or deny them to people we dislike. There has to be some sort of rational process behind it. If debates have identical lineups then denying a position to a party of government is crackers.
Re Cyclefree's post about keeping out of the country those with values he/she thinks contravene ours.
In Beirut the Christian and Muslim areas are pretty well defined. Neither area is better or worse and the line dividing the areas meanders. Muslims move freely in the Christian areas and vice versa. The only way to tell if you're in a Christan or Muslim area are the signs above the shops and advertising hoardings.
On the Muslim side the shop signs are written in Arabic on the Christian side they use the Roman alphabet
The big difference are the hoardings. On the Christian side they are full of posters of girls in very skimpy bikinis. The Muslim side have exactly the same posters but with swimsuits painted on.
Roger, my darling: Beirut is hardly a good argument for integration!! See innumerable books by Robert Fisk, for instance.
And on that note, I have to do some stuff. Nurse this blasted throat, for one thing, and find a Broadway show for next week's trip to NY.
The Tories HAVE to run against Carswell - and if his association has gone UKIP with him then they will have to parachute in Spadtivists from elsewhere. Carswell defecting is bad, much of the local association also defecting is far worse, not running "our kind of Conservatism" against "his kind" is suicidal.
UKIP are a clear insurgency against Cameroonism and the damage they are doing electorally is bad enough. MPs defecting, taking their activist base with them AND not having the heart to campaign against them is running up the white flag and accepting that actually UKIP are right. It would be the SDP all over again.
I said a while ago here that UKIP would one day replace The Conservative Party; I still believe that, and the momentum seems to be increasing. The Tories have let themselves be outflanked for the first time in their history. You can't 'middle-flank' -look at the Lib Dems. Look at Rotherham, look at Stafford, look at EU policy -who wants to look for votes in the 'middle' of that?
It's not that you can't middle-flank, it's that the Tories have been double flanked.
The emergence of the SDP/Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80s resulted in Lab and the Tories heading towards the centre from previously polarised positions to defend their inside flanks (this bringing of politics to the centre is probably the greatest influence the party has had).
What the Tories have struggled with is that (although to be realistic, it's not the first time in history there's ever been a party to the right of the Conservatives) having moved to cover their inside flank, they're now also being attacked on their outside flank.
(Also it takes a lot to replace a major established party, the only way UKIP even comes close to replacing the conservatives is if the Conservatives implode on a scale we haven't seen in British politics for almost a century)
Scottish friends and colleagues of mine have complained that The Saltire has been politicised -that you can't use it or say something like 'Let's support Scotland in the upcoming [insert event here]' without it coming out sounding like a nationalist statement. Sadly, even the notion of positivity itself seems to have been tainted by the obnoxious, bitter people who've appropriated the word 'yes'.
LOL, what a bunch of Tory jessies you must hang out with , tell them to get off their bellies and drop the inferiority complexes. You seem to be getting mixed up with national support and "nationalist" like your stupid friends who do not understand the difference.
Interesting things, inferiority complexes:
'A secondary inferiority feeling relates to an adult's experience of being unable to reach a subconscious, fictional final goal of subjective security and success to compensate for the inferiority feelings. The perceived distance from that goal would lead to a negative/depressed feeling that could then prompt the recall of the original inferiority feeling; this composite of inferiority feelings could be experienced as overwhelming. The goal invented to relieve the original, primary feeling of inferiority which actually causes the secondary feeling of inferiority is the "catch-22" of this dilemma.[clarification needed] This vicious cycle is common in neurotic lifestyles.'
Remind you of any particular group of people?
Ha Ha , you got your first year politics for dummies book out
Psychology for dummies actually -but thanks for confirming my thesis.
You certainly have the right profile for that book for sure.
Saddened/MikeK The Tories will contest the by-election as Cameron and the Association chairman have made clear, an open primary should be used to pick the candidate to contrast with Carswell being foisted on the local UKIP branch by UKIP's NEC. All Tory MPs should be made to visit Clacton at least once before polling day to campaign, if they do not it may be helpful in identifying any potential defectors to UKIP
You may be wasting your time using complicated concepts with Roger. An advertising jingle might be better. I enjoy his posts but I suspect they are very much tongue-in-cheek. No one can be such a caricature and still live in the real world.
I firmly believe he's an intelligent man having a joke on us all.
Has anyone noticed, that as the date of the IndyRef gets closer and the opinion polls stubbornly refuse to move in any dramatic way, the more desperate and vitriolic MalcolmG and other YESNP supporters become?
LOL, keep trying , why do you think we are so happy and you sad sack unionists are consumed by doom and gloom. Keep whinging.
You've had dram or two too many perhaps? Anyway, we can see now how you'll be if you lose and, heaven forfend, win. Neither option is particularly appealing.
Comments
So far the response from politicians of all shades has been to avoid questions from press and public, as they hide behind calls for more inquiries.
Wilson once described Labour as a moral crusade or it was nothing. It is clear it has become a void led by a man without a spine.
Is nationality an acceptable way to filter immigrants?? Could we, for instance, have a moratorium on immigrants from Pakistan, even if they were spouses of British nationals? Or a quota?
( Gaun yersel Malky)
Then their supporters come out of the woodwork and accuse people of being Nazi's just because they have a different political opinion. Ring wing British Nationalists are real nice people.
I'm not strongly in favour either way on the issue. I can see the advantages of being able to back both a party and an individual as under AMS but I also like the simplicity of one-voter-one-vote.
The two main ways to keep party hacks out of it are (1) relatively low barriers to election, enabling new parties with a reasonable modicum of support to have an impact, and (2) candidate voting, so that voters aren't lumped with whatever the parties decide. STV and open lists both achieve both objects.
Politicians of all stripes cannot believe how wrong multi culturalism has gone. They are in complete shock and denial. They would rather talk about anything else.
Will they get it? Will anyone care?
There needs to be a CPS/police task force from outside the area focused like a laser on those files and preparing prosecutions of perpetrators, colluders, everyone involved. And not just prosecutions: disciplinary actions, removal of taxi licences, public naming and shaming etc. And when they've finished with Rotherham, they can move onto all the other towns where this is happening.
It should be made plain to all immigrants that Sharia Law, FGM, etc is illegal. also covering of the face should be illegal. If you do not like these laws then you can leave.
We cannot have more than one set of basic laws for the people - it leads only to confusion, bias or persecution.
Edit - I mean the British informal definition, not necessarily suffering from dementia. ie
BRITISH informal
behaving irrationally due to anger, distress, or excitement.
"she was demented with worry"
synonyms: mad, insane, deranged, out of one's mind, not in one's right mind, crazed, lunatic, unbalanced, unhinged, unstable, disturbed, distracted, as mad as a hatter, as mad as a March hare, stark mad;
Let me remind you what you said on the last thread, you said; "Dear Dear we have real fruitcakes on here. You need to see a doctor."
You are suggesting I have mental health problems. You say this is not an insult. Because I've queried this you've followed up, now, with some comments about my personality. But I've never met you, and you've never met me, so you're saying this purely because you disagree with what I wrote on an online forum.
Do you realise how ridiculous that is?
If you want to convince people you're right, try debating with them respectfully and rationally. This is what Stuart Dickson does (who I have a lot of respect for) and he posts plenty of enlightened points that make me think.
If you want to intimidate or silence people you disagree with you, let me clear: I will not be silenced. I will continue to contribute to this debate whenever I feel fit. No matter what you post.
What I won't do is engage you in debate, or respond to any of your future posts, if all you have to contribute is insults. I will just ignore you and let those insults speak for themselves.
Others can then make their mind up about you - including the moderators.
"I see no good reason why we should let people who are in favour of sharia law into this country because someone who thinks that it would be great is going to find it very hard to accept some of our fundamental values e.g. equality for women or for gays or freedom of religion because sharia law is so clearly against these things."
That is the fundamental problem with Labour's approach to this: they don't seem to understand that if you invite in bad ideas, they will spread, they will corrode our public space, they will crowd out better ideas, they will be taught to youngsters in our schools. Labour and the Tories and the Lib Dems have not only let in bad ideas but then told the rest of us that we must respect those ideas and that all ideas are equally valid and that while women are equal it's OK if some of your neighbours don't treat women equally because, hey, they are doing it peacefully. But they're not, are they - as we've now found out."
Are you suggesting only people who hold your values should be allowed into this country? What about those already here should they also conform?
Perhaps when you get a moment you could pen for us all what values we should hold? It strikes me as about as fascist as you can get and about as far away from what I understand liberal values to be
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21614151-utterly-shockingand-distinctively-britishchild-sex-abuse-scandal-see-no-evil-hear-no-evil
Of course, refugees seeking asylum are a different category...
A quota addresses the scale of immigration not the 'quality'....
At the risk of oversimplifying the debate, there seems to be a view held by some that uncontrolled numbers and a failure to integrate is bad but controlled numbers and integration is good or at least tolerable... Fair enough, but I haven't seen any define acceptable integration.... Speak the language and respect the law are straight forward but adopting the culture and not living near to one another becomes increasingly difficult to apply.... For example, should someone from a culture that respects the elderly and would care for their elderly parents in the home be expected to pack them of to a poorly run care home in order to adopt the British way of behaving?
Malclog is a British nationalist plant, designed to make the Yessers look demented.
How else can he be explained?
30/08/2014 09:57
So touched to get so many members of my former #clacton association come with me.
No-one (outside the EU) has a right to come and live here. So there is no punishment involved in not letting people in who can only come here by our invitation. So if we think that people who follow a particular religion or sect or ideology are on balance unlikely to fit in with our mores I don't think it is discrimination to say no. Or, to put it another way, discriminating on the basis of something relevant is desirable. Essential even. Saying that we want immigrants who will add something positive to our nation rather than bring something negative is the only right way to look at immigration.
The problem has been that people think that any sort of discrimination is bad. But it depends on why you are discriminating. Discriminating because I don't like the colour and shape of your eyes is absurd; discriminating because I don't like your views about integrity (for instance, in the case of an interview for a job involving money) is essential.
In the past we assumed that people who emigrated to another country did so in part because they wanted to leave their old culture behind and adopt their new homeland. But I think it is fair to say that when we see groups of people who have firmly held views which say that you must not adapt to your homeland, you must reject its values and despise its people - as was taught in some of the Birmingham Trojan Horse schools - you are entitled as a country to say: no thanks. We won't have you here.
And the corollary is that when we do let people in from a very different background to ours we have to be utterly ruthless in ensuring that we make it clear that those different and incompatible values can have no place here. The failing in this country has been not to do this over the last 20-30 years and into that vacuum has rushed the Islamist ideology.
Since this will leave Scottish MP's with little to do the next logical step is to give Max Devo on domestic matters to the English,Welsh and Northern Ireland parliaments respectively
Remaining non domestic powers such as defense foreign affairs, infrastructure would then be dealt with by a small elected second chamber of all the nations.
And whilst tidying up things, the current second chamber,the anachronism of the 800 plus House of Lords can be abolished.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/labour-critics-pin-blame-for-new-no-woes-on-alexander.25188352
UKIP aren't a serious party anyway, so should be locked out of any TV debates.
Generally I think the debates should just be for those that have a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister (I.E. leader of Lab and Con)
On other matters, I should think we'll have some IndyRef polling in the Sunday's tonight.
Squeaky bum time for BT?
Interesting report from Breitbart this morning. Jacob Rees Mogg apparently denied he was thinking of going to UKIP but renewed calls for a UKIP tory pact.
Breitbart then reported there was evidence that kippers and tories are talking informally about deals locally in some constituencies.
Cyclefree for PM!
Good point, but we could avoid this debate by having a points system that gave nul points to countries where there was strong support for Sharia law. That way people from, say, rural Pakistan never get enough points to be allowed in, even if they are married to a British citizen.
On the question of liberal values, we are subject to the ECHR which encapsulates basic Western values and in 2003 the Court ruled that sharia law was incompatible with the ECHR.
A summary of the Court's reasoning follows:-
The Court first noted that freedom of thought, of religion, of expression and of association as guaranteed by the Convention could not deprive the authorities of a State in which an association, through its activities, jeopardised that State’s institutions, of the right to protect those institutions. It necessarily followed that a political party whose leaders incited to violence or put forward a policy which failed to respect democracy or which was aimed at the destruction of democracy and the flouting of the rights and freedoms recognised in a democracy, could not lay claim to the Convention’s protection against penalties imposed on those grounds. Such penalties could even, where there was a sufficiently established and imminent danger for democracy, take the form of preventive intervention.
The Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”.
According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged
from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal
procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
Given this, why shouldn't a country take the view that people who hold strongly to a belief in sharia might not be suitable immigrants?
I would suggest that qualification for debates should be on the basis of number of deposits retained at the previous general election. If a party cannot retain deposits in 326 seats, they should have no platform in the debates for a subsequent election.
Transparent, and democratic.
I dislike Galloway rather a lot. That said, physically assaulting people, whether private individuals or those in the public eye, for expressing an opinion is unacceptable.
"Generally I think the debates should just be for those that have a realistic chance of becoming Prime Minister"
Farage is currently a best price 50/1 (in from 200/1) to be next PM.
Stranger things have happened.
30/08/2014 10:05
.@YIofficial on their way to Clacton to campaign for @DouglasCarswell pic.twitter.com/3txpjHyBIx
"Any problems when Pinochet was allowed into the country? We as a nation make these decisions every day, the only thing open to debate is the scale. It's not going to be easy, but it has to be done."
I was particularly surprised that the post came from Cyclefree who these last few weeks has been lauding the wonderful freedoms of thought and expression that exist for all religions and creeds in Israel but not (apparently) for their surrounding Arab neighbours. So to hear him/her now advocating a system the like of which only actually exists in Saudi Arabia is a surprise
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
A genuine question, is your suggestion that a person in the UK should not have the right to freedom of religion? Is the alternative not to be utterly ruthless in applying the law of the land without exception... In other words, hold whatever beliefs, values, religion you want, that's not the business of the state, but step outside the law, including incitement, and you will be punished...
Reports that he suffered a broken jaw are not accurate, the MP's spokesman said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28994862
It's all about numbers. Tests and declarations are not worth the paper they are written on
http://youtu.be/YzYjv63oN-8
Perhaps Mike should impose a similar requirement on all those wishing to post on PB, Foxy.
A thought provoking post and one that goes to the heart of the immigration debate... Is the debate one of the scale of immigration or is it one of the 'quality' of immigrants or both and, if 'quality' is a factor, should it be assessed individual-by-individual or is it right that groups of potential immigrants (by race, by religion, by class, by gender ???) should be deemed as acceptable or not.
Secondly, the post goes to the heart of the debate on free speech... Should holding and expressing an opinion, in itself, be grounds for punishment or discrimination, particularly a religious opinion the holding of which is 'protected' under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights..
The problem arises that when we lean over backwards to allow the expression of religion of immigrants, we tend to inhibit the religious opinions of our own people.
Tory MPs have warned the party they would refuse to campaign against their former colleague Douglas Carswell in the by-election triggered by his defection to Ukip.
The Times reports some unnamed Conservative MPs have suggested the party should leave Mr Carswell to stand without a Tory challenger in the seat.
One MP told the paper: “Douglas is a Conservative. Where is the appetite going to be from our activists to fight him?
“What are we going to say on the doorsteps? Vote for our brand of Conservatism, not his?
“I came into politics to stop socialists ruining our country, not to fight other Conservatives. It is going to be absolutely miserable.”
The comments come as Ukip's treasurer warned more conservative MPs are “likely” to defect to the party.
Stuart Wheeler, the spread-betting tycoon and Ukip donor, said it was “odds-on” that more Tories were about to leave the party.
A Ukip source told the BBC that the party is also in talks with between five and ten Labour MPs about a similar move to that of Douglas Carswell, who on Thursday announced his defection to the euro-sceptic party, triggering a by-election.
Source: PoliticsHome
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100284469/douglas-carswell-will-win-big-with-implications-for-both-conservatives-and-ukip/
Muppets.
My view is that the view that apostates should be punished with death must give way - certainly in this country - because you can have no genuine freedom of thought if your right not to believe in a God leads to such threats.
Whilst there must be a time limit for the election to be held once Carswell has applied for his Chiltern Hundred seat, I think there is some flexibility about the actual Thursday chosen. Is it the incumbent in a personal capacity, his previous party or his new party that get to choose the day?
"Tests and declarations are not worth the paper they are written on"
Not necessarily. I was always impressed with the old USA visa waver form which included, nd may still include for all I know, seemingly daft questions like, Are you involved in organised crime or the trafficking in narcotics? (or words to that effect). Such a daft question who is going to answer, "Yes". However, there was a nice twist because if you got caught involved in either crime or drugs inside the USA they could, if they wanted, promptly throw you out of the country without trial or appeal because you had lied to get in.
It should not beyond the wit of our legal community to devise a similar declaration relating to human rights issues as well as crime which everyone arriving on these shores has to sign and which includes the acceptance that is they breach the declaration they are liable to be removed without appeal. No signature, no entry; breach the commitment instant removal.
Mind you none of that will help with the problems of Rotherham where the police and council officials collude if not in the actual offences then certainly in covering up their scope. Has anybody heard from the Home Secretary yet?
In Beirut the Christian and Muslim areas are pretty well defined. Neither area is better or worse and the line dividing the areas meanders. Muslims move freely in the Christian areas and vice versa. The only way to tell if you're in a Christan or Muslim area are the signs above the shops and advertising hoardings.
On the Muslim side the shop signs are written in Arabic on the Christian side they use the Roman alphabet
The big difference are the hoardings. On the Christian side they are full of posters of girls in very skimpy bikinis. The Muslim side have exactly the same posters but with swimsuits painted on.
UKIP are a clear insurgency against Cameroonism and the damage they are doing electorally is bad enough. MPs defecting, taking their activist base with them AND not having the heart to campaign against them is running up the white flag and accepting that actually UKIP are right. It would be the SDP all over again.
The journey usually bypasses many wealthy countries with excellent hospitals.
It usually involves one child and leaves behind or flies over thousands of others dying of starvation.
The MSM make a big play of it.
Are we being "played" or am i just some kind of paranoid monster?
I would have thought they'd want a quick election, but with IndyRef and the conference's, we're probably looking at Thursday 16th or 23rd October?
Defeating a writ is a bit of a nuclear option though, since it means it can't be moved again in the same parliamentary session (i.e. a parliamentary year).
So once parliament resumes (or is recalled I suppose) then if someone wants it quick (and the earliest it could be if someone moves it immediately is the day after Tory conference ends) they can propose it. If someone wants it later they can try amending that proposal, and in absolute extremis someone could defeat it and set it back to the General election (this is very very unlikely).
UKIP won't have any control since they've got no MPs currently.
And on that note, I have to do some stuff. Nurse this blasted throat, for one thing, and find a Broadway show for next week's trip to NY.
The emergence of the SDP/Alliance/Lib Dems in the 80s resulted in Lab and the Tories heading towards the centre from previously polarised positions to defend their inside flanks (this bringing of politics to the centre is probably the greatest influence the party has had).
What the Tories have struggled with is that (although to be realistic, it's not the first time in history there's ever been a party to the right of the Conservatives) having moved to cover their inside flank, they're now also being attacked on their outside flank.
(Also it takes a lot to replace a major established party, the only way UKIP even comes close to replacing the conservatives is if the Conservatives implode on a scale we haven't seen in British politics for almost a century)
You may be wasting your time using complicated concepts with Roger. An advertising jingle might be better. I enjoy his posts but I suspect they are very much tongue-in-cheek. No one can be such a caricature and still live in the real world.
I firmly believe he's an intelligent man having a joke on us all.
You must be deliriously happy, Mike.
Not too much firewater consumed last nite, I hope?