As to Rotherham, no one is going to emerge from the sordid business with a shred of credit. Not least because none of us know when a child becomes an adult. And we don't know because the answer varies from one person to another, always has, always will.
I was watching "The Shipping News" last night, which contains the following priceless lines:
Quoyle (Kevin Costner): If he died when he was 12 years old, he can't have been my grandfather. Auntie (Judi Dench): You don't know Newfoundlanders.
I think you will find that the actor chappie is called Kevin Spacey.
Perhaps you both might consider toning it down before you make unsubstantiated and/or libellous allegations that will get Mike into severe trouble.
Posh Tory says lets do nothing. Its just a 'wwc up north' issue to you isn't it Jack.
Perhaps you could point out anything Socrates or I have written which is factually incorrect.
Caution I urged and in the next breath you've libelled me. What a fool you are.
Since when did "posh" or "Tory" become libellous, Jack? You sound very grumpy this morning.
I plead guilty to the first and am innocent of the second.
As for grumpy, not at all but I can advise you that Mike would be more than "grumpy" to receive further correspondence from m'learned friends !!
PBers need to exercise a moment of caution before publishing their comments. PB isn't some cosy fireside chat between friends but a widely respected open forum that rightly draws extensive attention and accordingly is open to the full rigour of the libel laws.
Mike's wallet is on the line and we should all remember that.
Is JackW Viscount Thurso? It would explain a lot... We should be told!
Malcolm Bailey@maljb11·27 mins @IsabelHardman It amazes me the degree of "nitpicking" you seem intent on displaying. Next you will no doubt be sharing fashion tips
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·25 mins @maljb11 obviously I'd be sharing fashion tips because in your mind that's what a woman should do, right, rather than write about politics?
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·24 mins @maljb11 if you're so tribal you can't deal with analysis, stop following people you disagree with and just read Labour press releases
Malcolm Bailey@maljb11·17 mins @IsabelHardman glad that you think you are writing about politics but really you are only offering patronising bitchiness
Actually none of these turned out to be right. What is unusual is a very low Lab->UKIP conversion (down to 6% of the 2010 Lab vote), which is one of the objectives of the conference - we're trying to bring back the "nobody cares about us, we might as well vote UKIP" vote, which is at least as big as the anti-immigration UKIP vote and much softer. But it's a subsample of a conference week poll, so who knows really.
PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.
Your contributions aren't adding to people's awareness. You are not close the case, have no more resource material than the rest of us. You might say your contributions are in fact contributing to people's ignorance.
Nonsense. Anyone bringing up any topic on here is increasing the profile of that issue relative to others for this site's readership. Most of my mentions of the topic on here are actually linking to media sites from around the web. In fact, when I was linking various articles from local media, I was accused of just finding random cases and that there was no evidence of a systemic issue. That has clearly been shown to be absolute crap by the Jay report. The only way bringing information to a wider audience is contributing to ignorance is through a crazy 1984 style war-is-peace logic. I suppose being aware of facts that contradict the "truth" of left-wing ideology is ignorance in your mind...
... What is unusual is a very low Lab->UKIP conversion (down to 6% of the 2010 Lab vote), which is one of the objectives of the conference - we're trying to bring back the "nobody cares about us, we might as well vote UKIP" vote
So the general 'mood' of the Labour conference is terror? That Labour's base will vote UKIP in 2015?
Editor of Northern Guardian
Helen Pidd (@helenpidd) 23/09/2014 18:57 Labour is terrified about Ukip - huge turnout for event, loads of scared pcc's asking for help. @robfordmancs thinks their fear justified
Hilarious listening to Ed on R4 Today trying to explain why he didn't "use" the passages on the deficit and immigration. He didn't forget them, he didn't choose not to use them, "it's just the process by how I do these speeches, preparing what I want to say but then using that to make it up as a I go along, speaking directly to people" (paraphrasing).
Geek.
Thanks to Nick Palmer and TSE for organising the meet up/discussion group in Manchester last night. An enjoyable couple of hours, even if I (uncharacteristically...) did more listening than talking!
How is reducing the defIcit and immigration going BTW?
... What is unusual is a very low Lab->UKIP conversion (down to 6% of the 2010 Lab vote), which is one of the objectives of the conference - we're trying to bring back the "nobody cares about us, we might as well vote UKIP" vote
So the general 'mood' of the Labour conference is terror? That Labour's base will vote UKIP in 2015?
Lol - no. We're reasonably confident of the base ( basically 29% Lab + 6% Red Liberals). But it would be better to get a few more points from others, and given the scarcity of don't knows, the softest area looks the section of the UKIP vote which is not issue-driven but simply fed up.
PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.
Yet you only seem obsessed with Rotherham, and not on the many other cases, or even grooming of Asian girls. Or, for that matter, of boys. And which 'facts' do you think 'they' want suppressed?
The issues here are much more widespread than just Rotherham, and the causes probably much more complex than most on here seem to want to believe.
If we are to prevent the same thing happening in the future, then we need to get down to the real reasons they have occurred. And more importantly, why they were allowed to occur. Only then can we start to try to fix things.
Mr. Jessop, isn't a focus on Rotherham justified, given the huge scale of the crimes involved, the prolonged period of time over which they occurred, and the rank incompetence of local agencies?
Surely, the sensible and consistent thing for the Tories to do is to abolish central government property tax, and devolve responsibility for rate and allowance setting?
That is in the spirit of the Scottish devolution settlement and it de-politicises it nationally.
In England, go down to something like the existing county level.
Let London set it's own property tax. Let Essex, Leicestershire, Cumbria, Gloucestershire, Cornwall etc do exactly the same.
Problem with that would be that currently council tax is paid centrally to government pretty much. So income from the South East and London naturally will flow to poorer parts of the country.
If you let local authorities set their level, than then won't happen, or if it does, it opens up a huge can of worms.
... What is unusual is a very low Lab->UKIP conversion (down to 6% of the 2010 Lab vote), which is one of the objectives of the conference - we're trying to bring back the "nobody cares about us, we might as well vote UKIP" vote
So the general 'mood' of the Labour conference is terror? That Labour's base will vote UKIP in 2015?
Lol - no. We're reasonably confident of the base ( basically 29% Lab + 6% Red Liberals). But it would be better to get a few more points from others, and given the scarcity of don't knows, the softest area looks the section of the UKIP vote which is not issue-driven but simply fed up.
Labour Glasgow voted with the SNP last week. Labour Wales voted UKIP in the EU Parliament elections.
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
Mr. Jessop, isn't a focus on Rotherham justified, given the huge scale of the crimes involved, the prolonged period of time over which they occurred, and the rank incompetence of local agencies?
Rotherham is the only one where councillors and council workers have been shown to be negligent and have resigned. It's the only one that panorama has made a programme about and the one that is dominating the discussion of the issue in all forms of the media.
Anybody fancy a good laugh today, check out the comments on this article about suspected vote rigging in the Scottish Referendum. Some real 'tin foil hat' stuff knocking about!...
" Slapping a 1pc levy on homes worth more than £2m (or even just on the value above the threshold) is clearly idiotic: somebody with a £1.9m mortgage and a home worth just over £2m would be hit; someone who owns outright 100 £1m homes wouldn’t be affected. "
Mr. Jessop, isn't a focus on Rotherham justified, given the huge scale of the crimes involved, the prolonged period of time over which they occurred, and the rank incompetence of local agencies?
Not if we 'fix' Rotherham, slap ourselves on the back and say 'job well done!', when the many other causal factors go ignored. And a similar thing happens again in a few years time because we did not learn the necessary lessons from those causal factors.
As I've said passim, I'm deeply concerned that Ed has created a 'shadow minister for preventing violence against women and girls' when, according to Barnardos, up to a third of child abuse victims are male (1), and a goodly proportion of all victims of domestic abuse are male (perhaps up to 40% (2)).
Labour General Election voters have shown they are perfectly happy to vote SNP at Holyrood and then go back to voting Labour at the General Election. This may well have been repeated in the Referendum - some core Labour voters said "Yes" but will mark an X next to the red rosette come the General Election.
PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.
Your contributions aren't adding to people's awareness. You are not close the case, have no more resource material than the rest of us. You might say your contributions are in fact contributing to people's ignorance.
Nonsense. Anyone bringing up any topic on here is increasing the profile of that issue relative to others for this site's readership. Most of my mentions of the topic on here are actually linking to media sites from around the web. In fact, when I was linking various articles from local media, I was accused of just finding random cases and that there was no evidence of a systemic issue. That has clearly been shown to be absolute crap by the Jay report. The only way bringing information to a wider audience is contributing to ignorance is through a crazy 1984 style war-is-peace logic. I suppose being aware of facts that contradict the "truth" of left-wing ideology is ignorance in your mind...
A period of silence from you on this issue would be welcome. It's a shame you are so preoccupied with a topic in which you are horribly inexpert, because when you do raise topics in which your understanding is good your posts are required reading.
" Slapping a 1pc levy on homes worth more than £2m (or even just on the value above the threshold) is clearly idiotic: somebody with a £1.9m mortgage and a home worth just over £2m would be hit; someone who owns outright 100 £1m homes wouldn’t be affected. "
Sounds like another cliff edge I could mention - child benefit!!!!
Labour General Election voters have shown they are perfectly happy to vote SNP at Holyrood and then go back to voting Labour at the General Election. This may well have been repeated in the Referendum - some core Labour voters said "Yes" but will mark an X next to the red rosette come the General Election.
You hope. But will they?
"...in Wales Labour’s support level is now only 2% points above that gained in 2010."
Mr. Jessop, I concur entirely regarding the strange brazen sexism that seems blind to the numerous male victims of sexual crimes and domestic violence.
" Slapping a 1pc levy on homes worth more than £2m (or even just on the value above the threshold) is clearly idiotic: somebody with a £1.9m mortgage and a home worth just over £2m would be hit; someone who owns outright 100 £1m homes wouldn’t be affected. "
Sympathy will be in short supply, no matter what.
Anyone that can get a £1.9 million mortgage is obviously well-heeled.
Sympathy will only be for people who bought their houses in the 1960s when certain areas were deemed dog rough, and who just happen to now find their selves sitting in a more recently desirable area. Asset rich, income poor. Then there will be people who look at these and still ask why they are being allowed to sit on a £2 million asset and draw any means tested benefits.
The best way to defuse this as a national issue for any UK wide Tory Party wishing not to impose it, is to devolve the decision on stamp duty/property tax to local areas.
Many people will never forget Neil "Awwwright!" Kinnock, Hague's baseball cap, the "something of the night" about Michael Howard, the "Quiet Man" IDS, or "I saved the world" Gordon BeanBrown.
It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.
Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.
Mr. Chestnut, disagree. With the current despicable desire of Labour and some others to carve England into shitty little regions, such a move would set a precedent for 'regionalisation'. England needs proper devolution to an English Parliament.
Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) 24/09/2014 09:03 Richard Branson: Give everyone unlimited holidays from work dailym.ai/1sXc28B
Quite a few US companies do have that policy. Problem is, often people take fewer holidays as presenteeism kicks in - "I'm too busy to have a holiday" vs "oh, on holiday again? You mustn't have much work to do"
As to Rotherham, no one is going to emerge from the sordid business with a shred of credit. Not least because none of us know when a child becomes an adult. And we don't know because the answer varies from one person to another, always has, always will.
The age of consent is 16. That's the law.
I know that. What makes you think I don't? It can change. Indeed, for gays it's changed frequently. Please explain what it is you are trying to tell me, and why you are bothering.
Because your "none of us know when a child becomes an adult. " remark suggests ambiguity. There is none. 16 is the legal age of consent.
The report mentioned police/social services saying there was nothing they could do, because the girls consented. That they were making a lifestyle choice. That is clearly false, to consent they must be over 16.
Amazingly, some of our police don't seem to know that. There was one case of a 12 year old girl who was judged to be in consensual sexual relationships with five men in their 20s.
Sex between an adult and a child aged under 13 is legally rape, in every circumstances. Sex with a 13-16 year old may be rape, or a lesser offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, if the Defendant can show consent.
Arguments that 11-13 year olds were "consenting" to sex with adults should never have arisen.
I think Miliband should do his next speech through the medium of dance. That way when he forgets stuff he can just say people interpreted his movements wrongly
Many people will never forget Neil "Awwwright!" Kinnock, Hague's baseball cap, the "something of the night" about Michael Howard, the "Quiet Man" IDS, or "I saved the world" Gordon BeanBrown.
It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.
Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.
I thought this cleared it up nicely. A bit of straight talking always helps
‘You can have politicians reading out a speech, but I think you’ve got to change the way politics works. I think people want people to come along and tell them what they think, and that’s what I did yesterday. I’m sure I would do it differently. You know, if I did the speech again today I’d do it differently.’
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
What I found most interesting is that the areas where the Tories used to have seats, in Perthshire, Aberdeenshire , Angus, the borders and the posh parts of Edinburgh were all strongly no. Most of the local populations in these areas have not voted Tory for a long time but they were against independence and, I think, disconcerted by the leftward swing of the SNP, something that is likely to accelerate under Sturgeon. There is an opportunity for the Tories here but whether an ossified and very old party can seize it is another issue. They need to start with the activist data base of BT.
Mr. Chestnut, disagree. With the current despicable desire of Labour and some others to carve England into shitty little regions, such a move would set a precedent for 'regionalisation'. England needs proper devolution to an English Parliament.
Can't see the point of an Eng Parliament. Should devolve power to Gtr Manchester and Gtr Newcastle etc on the London mayoral model. Counties can then have simillar powers if they want it.
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
What I found most interesting is that the areas where the Tories used to have seats, in Perthshire, Aberdeenshire , Angus, the borders and the posh parts of Edinburgh were all strongly no. Most of the local populations in these areas have not voted Tory for a long time but they were against independence and, I think, disconcerted by the leftward swing of the SNP, something that is likely to accelerate under Sturgeon. There is an opportunity for the Tories here but whether an ossified and very old party can seize it is another issue. They need to start with the activist data base of BT.
Is that why there's been signs of a small Tory revival in Scotland lately -- soft SNPers getting cold feet at more the leftwing talk?
Many people will never forget Neil "Awwwright!" Kinnock, Hague's baseball cap, the "something of the night" about Michael Howard, the "Quiet Man" IDS, or "I saved the world" Gordon BeanBrown.
It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.
Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.
I thought this cleared it up nicely. A bit of straight talking always helps
‘You can have politicians reading out a speech, but I think you’ve got to change the way politics works. I think people want people to come along and tell them what they think, and that’s what I did yesterday. I’m sure I would do it differently. You know, if I did the speech again today I’d do it differently.’
Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?
Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
Th reported doubling of SNP membership over the last week or so will have interesting effects, as most will be ex SLAB in places like Glasgow. It should see off the Tartan Tories tag, but what is gained from Labour may well be lost elsewhere...
Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?
Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
What would be the purpose of such a parliament? You appear to favour it because you somehow believe it will balance the books. As I say, better to devolve to city units a la London where it is needed rather than create a whole layer of government that duplicates Westminster.
Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?
Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
Devolution of power to an England parliament, is not meaningful decentralisation of power.
Power should be devolved from the EU > Westminster, and from Westminster > local government.
I think Miliband should do his next speech through the medium of dance. That way when he forgets stuff he can just say people interpreted his movements wrongly
Cameron should definitely pretend to forget stuff in his speech
"Right I've told you about all the new friends I've made up & down the country, that about wraps things up!... Oh sorry I almost forgot to mention our policy on the deficit, and immigration..."
Actually Farage should do that on Friday, although it looks as though parliament recall will mean not much attention on ukip conference.
Are we getting turkeys voting for Xmas? Taking carbon out of the economy, blah blah bah. Of course everyone is in favour. How about if this means a year on year increase of 5% on fuel bills?
Minimum wage increase? Of course we are in favour. How about if that means the chippie's prices have to rise? Or they have to employ less people?
Who will pay for the house building? Would they still be in favour if they knew they will be going to the millions Lbaour will import from the third world to bolster their vote bank?
Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?
Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
What would be the purpose of such a parliament? You appear to favour it because you somehow believe it will balance the books. As I say, better to devolve to city units a la London where it is needed rather than create a whole layer of government that duplicates Westminster.
The trouble with regions and devolving power to cities is that you will get a lot more bitching and whining and competing for funds. One English parliament (or EV4EL) will not divide into countless squabbles for cash
Many people will never forget Neil "Awwwright!" Kinnock, Hague's baseball cap, the "something of the night" about Michael Howard, the "Quiet Man" IDS, or "I saved the world" Gordon BeanBrown.
It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.
Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.
I thought this cleared it up nicely. A bit of straight talking always helps
‘You can have politicians reading out a speech, but I think you’ve got to change the way politics works. I think people want people to come along and tell them what they think, and that’s what I did yesterday. I’m sure I would do it differently. You know, if I did the speech again today I’d do it differently.’
Yes. Fair play. Kinda neutralises the issue.
He (and you) wish:
This is interesting, because Ed clearly sees himself as some kind of political prophet of alienated voters, someone who understands them and speaks for them. But even his argument here shows why forgetting those passages was such a problem. If voters want a politician to tell them what he or she thinks, and that politician doesn’t think enough of an issue that comes in at number one for most of those voters, then how is the political prophet really speaking for those voters?
Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?
Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
What would be the purpose of such a parliament? You appear to favour it because you somehow believe it will balance the books. As I say, better to devolve to city units a la London where it is needed rather than create a whole layer of government that duplicates Westminster.
The trouble with regions and devolving power to cities is that you will get a lot more bitching and whining and competing for funds. One English parliament (or EV4EL) will not divide into countless squabbles for cash
Ah, regional devolution. Would cities be allowed control over local healthcare?
Abu Qatada has been found not guilty in a court in Jordan. Wonder what Theresa May will say when he asks to come back to the UK.
What will Labour say? It was after all their ridiculous laws which allowed him to stay in the first place. I guess, this will be conveniently forgotten.
Labour General Election voters have shown they are perfectly happy to vote SNP at Holyrood and then go back to voting Labour at the General Election. This may well have been repeated in the Referendum - some core Labour voters said "Yes" but will mark an X next to the red rosette come the General Election.
You hope. But will they?
"...in Wales Labour’s support level is now only 2% points above that gained in 2010."
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
Th reported doubling of SNP membership over the last week or so will have interesting effects, as most will be ex SLAB in places like Glasgow. It should see off the Tartan Tories tag, but what is gained from Labour may well be lost elsewhere...
That is my feeling. One of the untold stories of the referendum is how they lost the North East.
Mr. Ajob, duplicates? If the power is devolved to Scotland why can't it be devolved to England?
Mr. Dave, I want England to have equality with Scotland. If Scottish devolution is good and super and lovely and we should have more of it, what's wrong with that for England? Why is Scottish devolution great and English devolution horrid? It's an utterly inconsistent and indefensible position to hold.
Mr. Away, you're quite right.
Imagine a Northumbrian (for argument's sake) Parliament. It would get lower spend per head than London. But its people would be poorer. They might well complain about this.
Then imagine a London Parliament. They would be a net exporter of taxes, to places like Northumbria, but instead of gratitude they'd get complaints.
Both would have a legitimate case. Congratulations, balkanisers of England, you've just institutionalised division and discord.
And that's without considering that England is one land. It is not the property or plaything of today's political pygmy's to cut into little political fiefdoms. Why is one parliament essential for Scotland but not good enough for England?
Abu Qatada has been found not guilty in a court in Jordan. Wonder what Theresa May will say when he asks to come back to the UK.
What will Labour say? It was after all their ridiculous laws which allowed him to stay in the first place. I guess, this will be conveniently forgotten.
Home Office have already announced that as there's a deportation order in place, he'll remain where he currently resides. Since Qatata's a Jordanian citizen, there's no need for him to be here anyway.
Many people will never forget Neil "Awwwright!" Kinnock, Hague's baseball cap, the "something of the night" about Michael Howard, the "Quiet Man" IDS, or "I saved the world" Gordon BeanBrown.
It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.
Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.
I thought this cleared it up nicely. A bit of straight talking always helps
‘You can have politicians reading out a speech, but I think you’ve got to change the way politics works. I think people want people to come along and tell them what they think, and that’s what I did yesterday. I’m sure I would do it differently. You know, if I did the speech again today I’d do it differently.’
Yes. Fair play. Kinda neutralises the issue.
He (and you) wish:
This is interesting, because Ed clearly sees himself as some kind of political prophet of alienated voters, someone who understands them and speaks for them. But even his argument here shows why forgetting those passages was such a problem. If voters want a politician to tell them what he or she thinks, and that politician doesn’t think enough of an issue that comes in at number one for most of those voters, then how is the political prophet really speaking for those voters?
PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.
Of course there is. Connect the dots: Labour-political correctness-ethnic minorities-child abuse
Many people will never forget Neil "Awwwright!" Kinnock, Hague's baseball cap, the "something of the night" about Michael Howard, the "Quiet Man" IDS, or "I saved the world" Gordon BeanBrown.
It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.
Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.
I thought this cleared it up nicely. A bit of straight talking always helps
‘You can have politicians reading out a speech, but I think you’ve got to change the way politics works. I think people want people to come along and tell them what they think, and that’s what I did yesterday. I’m sure I would do it differently. You know, if I did the speech again today I’d do it differently.’
Yes. Fair play. Kinda neutralises the issue.
He (and you) wish:
This is interesting, because Ed clearly sees himself as some kind of political prophet of alienated voters, someone who understands them and speaks for them. But even his argument here shows why forgetting those passages was such a problem. If voters want a politician to tell them what he or she thinks, and that politician doesn’t think enough of an issue that comes in at number one for most of those voters, then how is the political prophet really speaking for those voters?
Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?
Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
What would be the purpose of such a parliament? You appear to favour it because you somehow believe it will balance the books. As I say, better to devolve to city units a la London where it is needed rather than create a whole layer of government that duplicates Westminster.
The trouble with regions and devolving power to cities is that you will get a lot more bitching and whining and competing for funds. One English parliament (or EV4EL) will not divide into countless squabbles for cash
The Gtr London model has worked extremely well. Why not extend it to Gtr Manchester, Gtr Newcastle - do away with parochial in fighting among tiny little council areas?
"MIRROR PHONE HACK 09:36: Trinity Mirror Group, the company that owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror newspapers, has issued a statement to the City this morning admitting liability to four individuals who had sued the newspaper for "the interception of their voicemails". The statement adds the Mirror has apologised and agreed to pay compensation."
Mr. Ajob, duplicates? If the power is devolved to Scotland why can't it be devolved to England?
Mr. Dave, I want England to have equality with Scotland. If Scottish devolution is good and super and lovely and we should have more of it, what's wrong with that for England? Why is Scottish devolution great and English devolution horrid? It's an utterly inconsistent and indefensible position to hold.
Mr. Away, you're quite right.
Imagine a Northumbrian (for argument's sake) Parliament. It would get lower spend per head than London. But its people would be poorer. They might well complain about this.
Then imagine a London Parliament. They would be a net exporter of taxes, to places like Northumbria, but instead of gratitude they'd get complaints.
Both would have a legitimate case. Congratulations, balkanisers of England, you've just institutionalised division and discord.
And that's without considering that England is one land. It is not the property or plaything of today's political pygmy's to cut into little political fiefdoms. Why is one parliament essential for Scotland but not good enough for England?
There is no honest argument against that question Morris dancer . The only argument is that labour will not have as many MPs. That's why they like more power to cities (as its Labour who will get power in those cities but still send MPs from them to govern the shires).
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
Has this No campaigner had a chance to speak to the 8,000(sic) Govan shipyard workers that 2 weeks ago were supposed to vote No to secure their jobs?
Mr. Ajob, duplicates? If the power is devolved to Scotland why can't it be devolved to England?
Mr. Dave, I want England to have equality with Scotland. If Scottish devolution is good and super and lovely and we should have more of it, what's wrong with that for England? Why is Scottish devolution great and English devolution horrid? It's an utterly inconsistent and indefensible position to hold.
Mr. Away, you're quite right.
Imagine a Northumbrian (for argument's sake) Parliament. It would get lower spend per head than London. But its people would be poorer. They might well complain about this.
Then imagine a London Parliament. They would be a net exporter of taxes, to places like Northumbria, but instead of gratitude they'd get complaints.
Both would have a legitimate case. Congratulations, balkanisers of England, you've just institutionalised division and discord.
And that's without considering that England is one land. It is not the property or plaything of today's political pygmy's to cut into little political fiefdoms. Why is one parliament essential for Scotland but not good enough for England?
There is no honest argument against that question Morris dancer . The only argument is that labour will not have as many MPs. That's why they like more power to cities (as its Labour who will get power in those cities but still send MPs from them to govern the shires).
The London model works well. What's your problem with affording Gtr Mcr the same powers?
Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?
Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
What would be the purpose of such a parliament? You appear to favour it because you somehow believe it will balance the books. As I say, better to devolve to city units a la London where it is needed rather than create a whole layer of government that duplicates Westminster.
The trouble with regions and devolving power to cities is that you will get a lot more bitching and whining and competing for funds. One English parliament (or EV4EL) will not divide into countless squabbles for cash
The Gtr London model has worked extremely well. Why not extend it to Gtr Manchester, Gtr Newcastle - do away with parochial in fighting among tiny little council areas?
Is that the same regional devolution idea that was soundly rejected a few years ago, or a different one?
Mr. Ajob, why is one parliament suitable for Scotland, but not England?
Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
What would be the purpose of such a parliament? You appear to favour it because you somehow believe it will balance the books. As I say, better to devolve to city units a la London where it is needed rather than create a whole layer of government that duplicates Westminster.
The trouble with regions and devolving power to cities is that you will get a lot more bitching and whining and competing for funds. One English parliament (or EV4EL) will not divide into countless squabbles for cash
The Gtr London model has worked extremely well. Why not extend it to Gtr Manchester, Gtr Newcastle - do away with parochial in fighting among tiny little council areas?
London is possibly a special case .Even then. I am not sure having a mayor has made that much difference beyond marvelling at the eccentricities of Boris and Ken over the years.
Mr. Ajob, duplicates? If the power is devolved to Scotland why can't it be devolved to England?
Mr. Dave, I want England to have equality with Scotland. If Scottish devolution is good and super and lovely and we should have more of it, what's wrong with that for England? Why is Scottish devolution great and English devolution horrid? It's an utterly inconsistent and indefensible position to hold.
Mr. Away, you're quite right.
Imagine a Northumbrian (for argument's sake) Parliament. It would get lower spend per head than London. But its people would be poorer. They might well complain about this.
Then imagine a London Parliament. They would be a net exporter of taxes, to places like Northumbria, but instead of gratitude they'd get complaints.
Both would have a legitimate case. Congratulations, balkanisers of England, you've just institutionalised division and discord.
And that's without considering that England is one land. It is not the property or plaything of today's political pygmy's to cut into little political fiefdoms. Why is one parliament essential for Scotland but not good enough for England?
I don't think England devolution is horrid. I want decentralisation of power, I just don't think that an England Parliament would be decentralisation.
I'd like to see the powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly devolved to county/city government in England.
Mr. Dave, I think that's an indefensible position. You're arguing for devolution for all Scotland, for all Wales, but for England to be carved into pieces. I don't care about decentralisation or regional authorities, I do not want my country to be cut into little shitty regions.
How can you defend a single Scottish Parliament and oppose the same for England?
Many people will never forget Neil "Awwwright!" Kinnock, Hague's baseball cap, the "something of the night" about Michael Howard, the "Quiet Man" IDS, or "I saved the world" Gordon BeanBrown.
It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.
Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.
I thought this cleared it up nicely. A bit of straight talking always helps
‘You can have politicians reading out a speech, but I think you’ve got to change the way politics works. I think people want people to come along and tell them what they think, and that’s what I did yesterday. I’m sure I would do it differently. You know, if I did the speech again today I’d do it differently.’
Yes. Fair play. Kinda neutralises the issue.
He (and you) wish:
This is interesting, because Ed clearly sees himself as some kind of political prophet of alienated voters, someone who understands them and speaks for them. But even his argument here shows why forgetting those passages was such a problem. If voters want a politician to tell them what he or she thinks, and that politician doesn’t think enough of an issue that comes in at number one for most of those voters, then how is the political prophet really speaking for those voters?
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
Th reported doubling of SNP membership over the last week or so will have interesting effects, as most will be ex SLAB in places like Glasgow. It should see off the Tartan Tories tag, but what is gained from Labour may well be lost elsewhere...
That is my feeling. One of the untold stories of the referendum is how they lost the North East.
Salmond's home turf.....but Sturgeon carried hers......
Very interesting talking to my Mum about her embrace of UKIP last night. For her it's not about immigration per se, or about the EU; instead, it's about culture. The straw that broke the camel's back is something that is currently unfolding at my sister's old school:
She just cannot accept - quite rightly in my view - that the school had any other choice. And she is disgusted at the lack of support it has received from mainstream parties. She said a stand has to be taken.
This is a woman who has been Labour for 50 years, whose whole family was Labour and whose Dad was a shop steward. I doubt there are many specific UKIP policies she would support, but she sees the party as a way of sending a message to all the other ones - Labour especially. "We have to take a stand" is what she said.
I have been somewhat dismissive of UKIP's ability to seal the deal with Labour voters. But if my Mum can say she is thinking of voting for them then I would say that Labour has very serious problems ahead.
As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.
Mr. Dave, I think that's an indefensible position. You're arguing for devolution for all Scotland, for all Wales, but for England to be carved into pieces. I don't care about decentralisation or regional authorities, I do not want my country to be cut into little shitty regions.
How can you defend a single Scottish Parliament and oppose the same for England?
Iirc the Cornish want their own separate assembly (and a chunk of them claim themselves as a nation).
But the main reason is the idea of a destabilizing dominance. That you'd end up with an English parliament dictating everything.
As to Rotherham, no one is going to emerge from the sordid business with a shred of credit. Not least because none of us know when a child becomes an adult. And we don't know because the answer varies from one person to another, always has, always will.
The age of consent is 16. That's the law.
I know that. What makes you think I don't? It can change. Indeed, for gays it's changed frequently. Please explain what it is you are trying to tell me, and why you are bothering.
Because your "none of us know when a child becomes an adult. " remark suggests ambiguity. There is none. 16 is the legal age of consent.
The report mentioned police/social services saying there was nothing they could do, because the girls consented. That they were making a lifestyle choice. That is clearly false, to consent they must be over 16.
Amazingly, some of our police don't seem to know that. There was one case of a 12 year old girl who was judged to be in consensual sexual relationships with five men in their 20s.
Sex between an adult and a child aged under 13 is legally rape, in every circumstances. Sex with a 13-16 year old may be rape, or a lesser offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, if the Defendant can show consent.
Arguments that 11-13 year olds were "consenting" to sex with adults should never have arisen.
In several cases the police appeared to suggest that they were operating in a grey area, where community considerations might have force, like say with sex between two minors or between a 16 and 15 year old (although clear guidance exists for those). The fact was this was a million miles from being a grey area.
Mr. Dave, I think that's an indefensible position. You're arguing for devolution for all Scotland, for all Wales, but for England to be carved into pieces. I don't care about decentralisation or regional authorities, I do not want my country to be cut into little shitty regions.
How can you defend a single Scottish Parliament and oppose the same for England?
I'm not defending the Scottish parliament. If I was Lord of the Land, the powers of the Scottish Parliament would be devolved to existing scottish county/city local government, and the scottish parliament would be abolished.
Mr. Observer, if we stopped saying things when we kept being wrong I would've stopped mentioning F1 after the first half of 2013!
Mr. Corporeal, indeed, Clegg's ill-considered and desperate bid to earn himself brownie points with the Cornish by granting them the unasked-for status of minority will increase the chances of England being carved up.
Mr. Dave, whilst I still disagree with you whole-heartedly (you may not be shocked to read that ), at least your position is consistent. Completely wrong, of course, and madder than a mongoose wearing a fez, but consistent.
"MIRROR PHONE HACK 09:36: Trinity Mirror Group, the company that owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror newspapers, has issued a statement to the City this morning admitting liability to four individuals who had sued the newspaper for "the interception of their voicemails". The statement adds the Mirror has apologised and agreed to pay compensation."
PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.
Of course there is. Connect the dots: Labour-political correctness-ethnic minorities-child abuse
Are you being sarcastic or are you suggesting a causal link between ethnicity and child abuse?
Very interesting talking to my Mum about her embrace of UKIP last night. For her it's not about immigration per se, or about the EU; instead, it's about culture. The straw that broke the camel's back is something that is currently unfolding at my sister's old school:
I have been somewhat dismissive of UKIP's ability to seal the deal with Labour voters. But if my Mum can say she is thinking of voting for them then I would say that Labour has very serious problems ahead.
As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.
I saw this the other day but decided not to mention it, as it seems a fairly minor cultural issue compared to things like Rotherham. But I think that the problem for many politicos is that they start from an entirely abstract philosophical logic of how policy should be determined, and then follow that logic through regardless of where it takes them. In some areas this leads to views that are very far from where the bulk of the population is.
Things like Islamic body covering are the classic example: most political people of all three establishment parties think of wearing the burkha as a matter of women's right to wear what they choose and are thus not bothered by it. . And of course a woman is entitled to wear what she wants. But it is still uncomfortable for most non-political types to see women who dress head to toe in black with only their face showing. People, on the whole, just don't like it: it seems like a symbol of women being held as inferior if they subscribe to a belief system where they have to cover their arms, necks and legs as they are responsible for the lustful thoughts of men. But people know that it's not really affecting anyone else, so they don't bring it up, and the huge divergence in views about it between the public and the political elite doesn't come out. But then when you go just a bit further and women start covering even their faces, it crosses a line for the public. It's clearly such a double standard for women to have to cover their faces and men not to, its a backwards thing that has never existed in the Western world, it prevents the normal identification of those walking down the street that we take for granted, and it makes anyone talking to them feel very uncomfortable not to be able to see facial expressions. As your mother said, it's a final straw. Yet politicos are completely surprised by the public's reaction, still think of it in terms of religious rights, and assume regular people are being racist out the blue.
More on phone hacking at the Mirror on BBC Business news feed.
MIRROR PHONE HACK 10:16: Negotiations over the size of the compensation to the Mirror's phone hacking victims - which it does not name - are continuing. The firm says if compensation cannot be agreed it will leave it to the courts to decide. Trinity Mirror has also confirmed that it has reached out of court settlements with six other phone hacking victims.
Oddly enough it isn't on the front of the website.
PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.
Of course there is. Connect the dots: Labour-political correctness-ethnic minorities-child abuse
Are you being sarcastic or are you suggesting a causal link between ethnicity and child abuse?
Very interesting talking to my Mum about her embrace of UKIP last night. For her it's not about immigration per se, or about the EU; instead, it's about culture. The straw that broke the camel's back is something that is currently unfolding at my sister's old school:
She just cannot accept - quite rightly in my view - that the school had any other choice. And she is disgusted at the lack of support it has received from mainstream parties. She said a stand has to be taken.
This is a woman who has been Labour for 50 years, whose whole family was Labour and whose Dad was a shop steward. I doubt there are many specific UKIP policies she would support, but she sees the party as a way of sending a message to all the other ones - Labour especially. "We have to take a stand" is what she said.
I have been somewhat dismissive of UKIP's ability to seal the deal with Labour voters. But if my Mum can say she is thinking of voting for them then I would say that Labour has very serious problems ahead.
As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.
Interesting one, Southam, not least because I can remember being sent home from School to get a haircut. (It's not a problem I would have now.)
Schools are in a delicate position with respect to suitable garb. They can't have an anything goes policy but it's very difficult to know where to draw the line. It has to be down to the staff to operate rules fairly and sensibly and I can see why the niqab might present problems.
Sounds to me like the kid was trying it on. She's been told to get real.
Very interesting talking to my Mum about her embrace of UKIP last night. For her it's not about immigration per se, or about the EU; instead, it's about culture. The straw that broke the camel's back is something that is currently unfolding at my sister's old school:
She just cannot accept - quite rightly in my view - that the school had any other choice. And she is disgusted at the lack of support it has received from mainstream parties. She said a stand has to be taken.
This is a woman who has been Labour for 50 years, whose whole family was Labour and whose Dad was a shop steward. I doubt there are many specific UKIP policies she would support, but she sees the party as a way of sending a message to all the other ones - Labour especially. "We have to take a stand" is what she said.
I have been somewhat dismissive of UKIP's ability to seal the deal with Labour voters. But if my Mum can say she is thinking of voting for them then I would say that Labour has very serious problems ahead.
As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.
Well as a non ukipper yourself you can say that without fear of being accused of lying by labour posters on here... If you said you had left be prepared to smeared and doubted about the veracity of your anecdotes regarding the class of your mates
It seems you and I have similar backgrounds. My parents were brought up in council houses, and worked in the public sector. none of my family have been to Uni, and we always voted labour. But now I am a member of ukip, my dad votes for them, and my mum, who threatened to ban me for the house if I ever voted Tory, is wavering, although she still voted labour at the euros
She will probably be loyal to them forever in the hope they will change back to what they were in the 60s and 70s. She says she wants to stay in the EU but without all the immigration, and having worked in tower hamlets council office for twenty odd years she knows the truth about the goings on there
Like you, I feel if my mum turns ukip then it really is all over for labour
Mr. Ajob, duplicates? If the power is devolved to Scotland why can't it be devolved to England?
Mr. Dave, I want England to have equality with Scotland. If Scottish devolution is good and super and lovely and we should have more of it, what's wrong with that for England? Why is Scottish devolution great and English devolution horrid? It's an utterly inconsistent and indefensible position to hold.
Mr. Away, you're quite right.
Imagine a Northumbrian (for argument's sake) Parliament. It would get lower spend per head than London. But its people would be poorer. They might well complain about this.
Then imagine a London Parliament. They would be a net exporter of taxes, to places like Northumbria, but instead of gratitude they'd get complaints.
Both would have a legitimate case. Congratulations, balkanisers of England, you've just institutionalised division and discord.
And that's without considering that England is one land. It is not the property or plaything of today's political pygmy's to cut into little political fiefdoms. Why is one parliament essential for Scotland but not good enough for England?
I don't think England devolution is horrid. I want decentralisation of power, I just don't think that an England Parliament would be decentralisation.
I'd like to see the powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly devolved to county/city government in England.
So every city and county should have its own health service and its own planning department for railways etc?
Labour clearly have no idea how they will actually set the "mansion tax" up and actually identify houses that are worth £2m or more.
Yesterday Burnham made a complete idiot of himself in all interviews claiming they would use the Land Registry system, which of course only covers sold prices. Andrew Neil found it pretty hard not to laugh at his lack of knowledge.
Now today Miliband is talking about using the same system that the government uses when properties are put into company shells. Once again this based upon a sale and purchase process. There may well be 70,000 properties worth more than £2m across the UK, but the number where there's a real recorded actual value Labour can tax is tiny.
Labour have no economic credibility already. This policy makes it worse.
Very interesting talking to my Mum about her embrace of UKIP last night. For her it's not about immigration per se, or about the EU; instead, it's about culture. The straw that broke the camel's back is something that is currently unfolding at my sister's old school:
She just cannot accept - quite rightly in my view - that the school had any other choice. And she is disgusted at the lack of support it has received from mainstream parties. She said a stand has to be taken.
This is a woman who has been Labour for 50 years, whose whole family was Labour and whose Dad was a shop steward. I doubt there are many specific UKIP policies she would support, but she sees the party as a way of sending a message to all the other ones - Labour especially. "We have to take a stand" is what she said.
I have been somewhat dismissive of UKIP's ability to seal the deal with Labour voters. But if my Mum can say she is thinking of voting for them then I would say that Labour has very serious problems ahead.
As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.
It's also curious that the wearing of the Niqab is defended as "progressive" and "feminist".....not the first two adjectives that would have sprung to my mind....
I wonder if the 48% of Labour members who are Londoners are like your Mum, or subscribe to the Niqab as a progressive feminist view.....
PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.
Of course there is. Connect the dots: Labour-political correctness-ethnic minorities-child abuse
Are you being sarcastic or are you suggesting a causal link between ethnicity and child abuse?
I'm not saying it, the Rotherham Report said it.
I must have missed that bit... Which paragraph states that ones ethnicity makes one more or less likely to be a child abuser and that this would be the case regardless of other contributory factors?
SO-Interesting your mother is against EU immigration. How about Third World immigration. She probably is but would fear the thought police would come and arrest her if she said so.
Given the indifference of the Welsh toward independence, I propose abolishing the assembly and creating the single, unified country of Wangland. We can all be Wanglanders (Wangers, colloquially) together.
Any objections would melt away with the magic words "Gareth Bale".
Labour clearly have no idea how they will actually set the "mansion tax" up and actually identify houses that are worth £2m or more.
Yesterday Burnham made a complete idiot of himself in all interviews claiming they would use the Land Registry system, which of course only covers sold prices. Andrew Neil found it pretty hard not to laugh at his lack of knowledge.
Now today Miliband is talking about using the same system that the government uses when properties are put into company shells. Once again this based upon a sale and purchase process. There may well be 70,000 properties worth more than £2m across the UK, but the number where there's a real recorded actual value Labour can tax is tiny.
Labour have no economic credibility already. This policy makes it worse.
The plan changed with Burnham from interview to interview, flipping from the Land Registry to some internal government department that he was unable to name.
He was also floundering when he suggested that all the money from the tax would be available in the first year, when it quite clearly won't.
Another vague, back of a fag packet idea that's unravelling.
Very interesting talking to my Mum about her embrace of UKIP last night. For her it's not about immigration per se, or about the EU; instead, it's about culture. The straw that broke the camel's back is something that is currently unfolding at my sister's old school:
As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.
I saw this the other day but decided not to mention it, as it seems a fairly minor cultural issue compared to things like Rotherham. But I think that the problem for many politicos is that they start from an entirely abstract philosophical logic of how policy should be determined, and then follow that logic through regardless of where it takes them. In some areas this leads to views that are very far from where the bulk of the population is.
Things like Islamic body covering are the classic example: most political people of all three establishment parties think of wearing the burkha as a matter of women's right to wear what they choose and are thus not bothered by it. . And of course a woman is entitled to wear what she wants. But it is still uncomfortable for most non-political types to see women who dress head to toe in black with only their face showing. People, on the whole, just don't like it: it seems like a symbol of women being held as inferior if they subscribe to a belief system where they have to cover their arms, necks and legs as they are responsible for the lustful thoughts of men. But people know that it's not really affecting anyone else, so they don't bring it up, and the huge divergence in views about it between the public and the political elite doesn't come out. But then when you go just a bit further and women start covering even their faces, it crosses a line for the public. It's clearly such a double standard for women to have to cover their faces and men not to, its a backwards thing that has never existed in the Western world, it prevents the normal identification of those walking down the street that we take for granted, and it makes anyone talking to them feel very uncomfortable not to be able to see facial expressions. As your mother said, it's a final straw. Yet politicos are completely surprised by the public's reaction, still think of it in terms of religious rights, and assume regular people are being racist out the blue.
Without going to far into religion or culture, my main problem with it is I just don't like it when you can't share a smile/say hello to someone you pass in the street
Then you know nothing about London. It was a shambles before the mayoralty arrived - no overarching strategy for government.
Watcher
No. I'm talking about city devolution. As I have said. See if you can grasp the concept.
City devolution is not the answer.
England cannot be divided into a series of city states - the country is just not structured to make that desirable or practical.
If you don't divide into city states but still want to give cities extra powers, you then create another layer of democratic division - when those is major urban centres have greater powers than their rural counterparts. And that is unacceptable.
The answer may be to completely restructure local government to bring back the county system.
But I am far from convinced by that.
But then I am not at all convinced by those who say that Scottish nationalism is good and English is bad.
EV4EL is something that can be made to work very easily. It does not create another layer of politicians and goes far enough to answering the issues of democratic deficit that greater devolution is bringing.
Labour clearly have no idea how they will actually set the "mansion tax" up and actually identify houses that are worth £2m or more.
Yesterday Burnham made a complete idiot of himself in all interviews claiming they would use the Land Registry system, which of course only covers sold prices. Andrew Neil found it pretty hard not to laugh at his lack of knowledge.
Now today Miliband is talking about using the same system that the government uses when properties are put into company shells. Once again this based upon a sale and purchase process. There may well be 70,000 properties worth more than £2m across the UK, but the number where there's a real recorded actual value Labour can tax is tiny.
Labour have no economic credibility already. This policy makes it worse.
So say 100k houses need appraised to see if they pass the limit.
A surveyor with his finger out could do say 5 a day.
PB is at its absolute worst when discussing complex child abuse cases. Ill-informed people making I intemperate, unguarded and sometimes libellous comments about a desperately sensitive subject they know too little about.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.
There's a clear effort by those on the left to use every excuse they can to try to clamp down on people raising awareness on this issue. It's almost like there's a massive vested interest in keeping the facts suppressed. The discussions here about child abuse are no more ill-informed, intemperate or unguarded than those about economics, or foreign policy, or a dozen other issues.
Of course there is. Connect the dots: Labour-political correctness-ethnic minorities-child abuse
Are you being sarcastic or are you suggesting a causal link between ethnicity and child abuse?
I'm not saying it, the Rotherham Report said it.
I must have missed that bit... Which paragraph states that ones ethnicity makes one more or less likely to be a child abuser and that this would be the case regardless of other contributory factors?
Leave it out - you're making a fool of yourself in your PC-mad worldview.
Unless, maybe you read the report where the vast majority of abusers in Rotherham were white and victims were overwhelmingly Pakistani. Probably the report that would have been authorised by the Labour party.
Mr. Ajob, duplicates? If the power is devolved to Scotland why can't it be devolved to England?
Mr. Dave, I want England to have equality with Scotland. If Scottish devolution is good and super and lovely and we should have more of it, what's wrong with that for England? Why is Scottish devolution great and English devolution horrid? It's an utterly inconsistent and indefensible position to hold.
Mr. Away, you're quite right.
Imagine a Northumbrian (for argument's sake) Parliament. It would get lower spend per head than London. But its people would be poorer. They might well complain about this.
Then imagine a London Parliament. They would be a net exporter of taxes, to places like Northumbria, but instead of gratitude they'd get complaints.
Both would have a legitimate case. Congratulations, balkanisers of England, you've just institutionalised division and discord.
And that's without considering that England is one land. It is not the property or plaything of today's political pygmy's to cut into little political fiefdoms. Why is one parliament essential for Scotland but not good enough for England?
I don't think England devolution is horrid. I want decentralisation of power, I just don't think that an England Parliament would be decentralisation.
I'd like to see the powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly devolved to county/city government in England.
So every city and county should have its own health service and its own planning department for railways etc?
Before the NHS, hospitals were owned/run by a variety of providers: insurers, charities, and local government.
Interesting that women not wearing a headscarf when outside would be assumed to be loose and immoral as late as the 50's/60's in Britain. Of course, in that case, it was cultural and not religious.
Labour clearly have no idea how they will actually set the "mansion tax" up and actually identify houses that are worth £2m or more.
Yesterday Burnham made a complete idiot of himself in all interviews claiming they would use the Land Registry system, which of course only covers sold prices. Andrew Neil found it pretty hard not to laugh at his lack of knowledge.
Now today Miliband is talking about using the same system that the government uses when properties are put into company shells. Once again this based upon a sale and purchase process. There may well be 70,000 properties worth more than £2m across the UK, but the number where there's a real recorded actual value Labour can tax is tiny.
Labour have no economic credibility already. This policy makes it worse.
So say 100k houses need appraised to see if they pass the limit.
A surveyor with his finger out could do say 5 a day.
20,000 man days to assess them every year.
80 surveyors working for a year..
Plus support and appeals ?
How does a surveyor know how many bedrooms/rooms/etc are in each house?
Comments
Malcolm Bailey@maljb11·27 mins
@IsabelHardman It amazes me the degree of "nitpicking" you seem intent on displaying. Next you will no doubt be sharing fashion tips
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·25 mins
@maljb11 obviously I'd be sharing fashion tips because in your mind that's what a woman should do, right, rather than write about politics?
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·24 mins
@maljb11 if you're so tribal you can't deal with analysis, stop following people you disagree with and just read Labour press releases
Malcolm Bailey@maljb11·17 mins
@IsabelHardman glad that you think you are writing about politics but really you are only offering patronising bitchiness
Malcolm Bailey@maljb11·2m
@IsabelHardman lol. So tetchy
http://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Tables-for-Ed-Miliband-Speech-Reactions-Poll.pdf
I suspect that many working class, ex Labour Kippers stopped voting Labour before 2010, and are among the lost millions between 1997 and 2010.
I think many have flirted with the Lib Dems and the BNP in the interim, or just given up the ghost altogether.
Helen Pidd (@helenpidd)
23/09/2014 18:57
Labour is terrified about Ukip - huge turnout for event, loads of scared pcc's asking for help. @robfordmancs thinks their fear justified
The issues here are much more widespread than just Rotherham, and the causes probably much more complex than most on here seem to want to believe.
If we are to prevent the same thing happening in the future, then we need to get down to the real reasons they have occurred. And more importantly, why they were allowed to occur. Only then can we start to try to fix things.
If you let local authorities set their level, than then won't happen, or if it does, it opens up a huge can of worms.
How safe is that Labour England vote?
1. The election was closer than we thought and the SNP blew it. In Kinnock fashion Salmond's attitude in the last 2 weeks wound up enough people to ensure a massive turnout by his opponents.
2. Labour's election team need new leadership. They were frankly hopeless in Scotland. If this carries onto the general election they may well lose it.
3. Facebook elections are hear to stay. Much of this campaign was fought on Facebook. People were targeted, pushed and harangued with a big impact on the young vote. My son who is both of strong mind and a No supporter was hit with a torrent of abuse for suggesting that some of Salmond's ideas were not well thought out. Many of his friends in Glasgow who were not convinced about the Yes campaign just stayed at home. In Glasgow and Dundee some of the lower turnouts may have been caused by this.
4. SNP took a gamble and deserted some of its old supporters to pick up the Labour voters. This will reshape the party. No longer is their core vote rural but instead the inner city poor.
5. The Tory decline in Scotland has probably reached the bottom. Ruth Davidson was impressive and the Tories are regaining strength in the countryside and the wealthy suburbs.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/22/scottish-referendum-vote-rigging-claims-recount-petitions
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/11117251/Why-Labours-Mansion-Tax-shows-that-it-has-lost-touch-with-financial-reality.html
" Slapping a 1pc levy on homes worth more than £2m (or even just on the value above the threshold) is clearly idiotic: somebody with a £1.9m mortgage and a home worth just over £2m would be hit; someone who owns outright 100 £1m homes wouldn’t be affected. "
24/09/2014 09:04
#ukip +7 in latest @ICMResearch @BBCWalesNews Wales poll. bbc.in/1sozGAJ
As I've said passim, I'm deeply concerned that Ed has created a 'shadow minister for preventing violence against women and girls' when, according to Barnardos, up to a third of child abuse victims are male (1), and a goodly proportion of all victims of domestic abuse are male (perhaps up to 40% (2)).
It's the easy answers we need to avoid.
(1): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28935733
(2): http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
"...in Wales Labour’s support level is now only 2% points above that gained in 2010."
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2014/09/24/new-bbcicm-poll/
Quite interesting to see how/if this works.
Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline)
24/09/2014 09:03
Richard Branson: Give everyone unlimited holidays from work dailym.ai/1sXc28B
Anyone that can get a £1.9 million mortgage is obviously well-heeled.
Sympathy will only be for people who bought their houses in the 1960s when certain areas were deemed dog rough, and who just happen to now find their selves sitting in a more recently desirable area. Asset rich, income poor. Then there will be people who look at these and still ask why they are being allowed to sit on a £2 million asset and draw any means tested benefits.
The best way to defuse this as a national issue for any UK wide Tory Party wishing not to impose it, is to devolve the decision on stamp duty/property tax to local areas.
It did seem that Ed Miliband might be most remembered for not being called David, but the leader who much of the country mistook for his brother may have trumped that image by forgetting the passages in his speech that dealt with the deficit and immigration. No doubt the dog ate his notes.
Ridicule is surely fatal for any politician. Today Miliband's career teeters on the brink. The mocking Cameron received over the airbrushed posters never quite reached the critical mass necessary to prevent him becoming PM. I fear for Miliband that the Press are going to be more keen on remembering his forgetfulness. Oh dear.
Arguments that 11-13 year olds were "consenting" to sex with adults should never have arisen.
‘You can have politicians reading out a speech, but I think you’ve got to change the way politics works. I think people want people to come along and tell them what they think, and that’s what I did yesterday. I’m sure I would do it differently. You know, if I did the speech again today I’d do it differently.’
Nobody proposed Lowland, Highland and Island Parliaments, or a Glasgow Parliament and an Edinburgh Parliament. If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
Power should be devolved from the EU > Westminster, and from Westminster > local government.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100287120/where-next-with-uk-devolution-some-quick-observations/
"Right I've told you about all the new friends I've made up & down the country, that about wraps things up!... Oh sorry I almost forgot to mention our policy on the deficit, and immigration..."
Actually Farage should do that on Friday, although it looks as though parliament recall will mean not much attention on ukip conference.
@nickpalmer does that mean you can't go?
Taking carbon out of the economy, blah blah bah. Of course everyone is in favour. How about if this means a year on year increase of 5% on fuel bills?
Minimum wage increase? Of course we are in favour. How about if that means the chippie's prices have to rise? Or they have to employ less people?
Who will pay for the house building? Would they still be in favour if they knew they will be going to the millions Lbaour will import from the third world to bolster their vote bank?
And so it goes on.
This is interesting, because Ed clearly sees himself as some kind of political prophet of alienated voters, someone who understands them and speaks for them. But even his argument here shows why forgetting those passages was such a problem. If voters want a politician to tell them what he or she thinks, and that politician doesn’t think enough of an issue that comes in at number one for most of those voters, then how is the political prophet really speaking for those voters?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/ed-miliband-a-prophet-without-notes/
What will Labour say?
It was after all their ridiculous laws which allowed him to stay in the first place. I guess, this will be conveniently forgotten.
Mr. Dave, I want England to have equality with Scotland. If Scottish devolution is good and super and lovely and we should have more of it, what's wrong with that for England? Why is Scottish devolution great and English devolution horrid? It's an utterly inconsistent and indefensible position to hold.
Mr. Away, you're quite right.
Imagine a Northumbrian (for argument's sake) Parliament. It would get lower spend per head than London. But its people would be poorer. They might well complain about this.
Then imagine a London Parliament. They would be a net exporter of taxes, to places like Northumbria, but instead of gratitude they'd get complaints.
Both would have a legitimate case. Congratulations, balkanisers of England, you've just institutionalised division and discord.
And that's without considering that England is one land. It is not the property or plaything of today's political pygmy's to cut into little political fiefdoms. Why is one parliament essential for Scotland but not good enough for England?
Desperate times.
Of course there is. Connect the dots:
Labour-political correctness-ethnic minorities-child abuse
I have no idea what Miliband is going on about and I am kind of sympathetic to him
"MIRROR PHONE HACK
09:36: Trinity Mirror Group, the company that owns the Daily and Sunday Mirror newspapers, has issued a statement to the City this morning admitting liability to four individuals who had sued the newspaper for "the interception of their voicemails". The statement adds the Mirror has apologised and agreed to pay compensation."
I'd like to see the powers currently devolved to the Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly devolved to county/city government in England.
How can you defend a single Scottish Parliament and oppose the same for England?
It's a view....
There are now more pandas in Scotland than the SNP's majority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29335767
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/camden_school_for_girls_bans_muslim_pupil_from_wearing_niqab_veil_for_security_1_3781011
She just cannot accept - quite rightly in my view - that the school had any other choice. And she is disgusted at the lack of support it has received from mainstream parties. She said a stand has to be taken.
This is a woman who has been Labour for 50 years, whose whole family was Labour and whose Dad was a shop steward. I doubt there are many specific UKIP policies she would support, but she sees the party as a way of sending a message to all the other ones - Labour especially. "We have to take a stand" is what she said.
I have been somewhat dismissive of UKIP's ability to seal the deal with Labour voters. But if my Mum can say she is thinking of voting for them then I would say that Labour has very serious problems ahead.
As I said yesterday on here, maybe the best thing that can happen to Labour for its long-term good is a serious kicking in Heywood & Middleton.
But the main reason is the idea of a destabilizing dominance. That you'd end up with an English parliament dictating everything.
Then you know nothing about London. It was a shambles before the mayoralty arrived - no overarching strategy for government.
Watcher
No. I'm talking about city devolution. As I have said. See if you can grasp the concept.
Mr. Corporeal, indeed, Clegg's ill-considered and desperate bid to earn himself brownie points with the Cornish by granting them the unasked-for status of minority will increase the chances of England being carved up.
Mr. Dave, whilst I still disagree with you whole-heartedly (you may not be shocked to read that
Spits.
Ed Miliband insists deficit is 'priority' despite forgetting it in speech
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29335450
To get "deficit" and his own forgetfulness in one headline is going some.....
Things like Islamic body covering are the classic example: most political people of all three establishment parties think of wearing the burkha as a matter of women's right to wear what they choose and are thus not bothered by it. . And of course a woman is entitled to wear what she wants. But it is still uncomfortable for most non-political types to see women who dress head to toe in black with only their face showing. People, on the whole, just don't like it: it seems like a symbol of women being held as inferior if they subscribe to a belief system where they have to cover their arms, necks and legs as they are responsible for the lustful thoughts of men. But people know that it's not really affecting anyone else, so they don't bring it up, and the huge divergence in views about it between the public and the political elite doesn't come out. But then when you go just a bit further and women start covering even their faces, it crosses a line for the public. It's clearly such a double standard for women to have to cover their faces and men not to, its a backwards thing that has never existed in the Western world, it prevents the normal identification of those walking down the street that we take for granted, and it makes anyone talking to them feel very uncomfortable not to be able to see facial expressions. As your mother said, it's a final straw. Yet politicos are completely surprised by the public's reaction, still think of it in terms of religious rights, and assume regular people are being racist out the blue.
MIRROR PHONE HACK
10:16: Negotiations over the size of the compensation to the Mirror's phone hacking victims - which it does not name - are continuing. The firm says if compensation cannot be agreed it will leave it to the courts to decide. Trinity Mirror has also confirmed that it has reached out of court settlements with six other phone hacking victims.
Oddly enough it isn't on the front of the website.
Interesting one, Southam, not least because I can remember being sent home from School to get a haircut. (It's not a problem I would have now.)
Schools are in a delicate position with respect to suitable garb. They can't have an anything goes policy but it's very difficult to know where to draw the line. It has to be down to the staff to operate rules fairly and sensibly and I can see why the niqab might present problems.
Sounds to me like the kid was trying it on. She's been told to get real.
Storm in a teacup.
It seems you and I have similar backgrounds. My parents were brought up in council houses, and worked in the public sector. none of my family have been to Uni, and we always voted labour. But now I am a member of ukip, my dad votes for them, and my mum, who threatened to ban me for the house if I ever voted Tory, is wavering, although she still voted labour at the euros
She will probably be loyal to them forever in the hope they will change back to what they were in the 60s and 70s. She says she wants to stay in the EU but without all the immigration, and having worked in tower hamlets council office for twenty odd years she knows the truth about the goings on there
Like you, I feel if my mum turns ukip then it really is all over for labour
Yesterday Burnham made a complete idiot of himself in all interviews claiming they would use the Land Registry system, which of course only covers sold prices. Andrew Neil found it pretty hard not to laugh at his lack of knowledge.
Now today Miliband is talking about using the same system that the government uses when properties are put into company shells. Once again this based upon a sale and purchase process.
There may well be 70,000 properties worth more than £2m across the UK, but the number where there's a real recorded actual value Labour can tax is tiny.
Labour have no economic credibility already. This policy makes it worse.
I wonder if the 48% of Labour members who are Londoners are like your Mum, or subscribe to the Niqab as a progressive feminist view.....
Any objections would melt away with the magic words "Gareth Bale".
He was also floundering when he suggested that all the money from the tax would be available in the first year, when it quite clearly won't.
Another vague, back of a fag packet idea that's unravelling.
England cannot be divided into a series of city states - the country is just not structured to make that desirable or practical.
If you don't divide into city states but still want to give cities extra powers, you then create another layer of democratic division - when those is major urban centres have greater powers than their rural counterparts. And that is unacceptable.
The answer may be to completely restructure local government to bring back the county system.
But I am far from convinced by that.
But then I am not at all convinced by those who say that Scottish nationalism is good and English is bad.
EV4EL is something that can be made to work very easily. It does not create another layer of politicians and goes far enough to answering the issues of democratic deficit that greater devolution is bringing.
A surveyor with his finger out could do say 5 a day.
20,000 man days to assess them every year.
80 surveyors working for a year..
Plus support and appeals ?
Unless, maybe you read the report where the vast majority of abusers in Rotherham were white and victims were overwhelmingly Pakistani. Probably the report that would have been authorised by the Labour party.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welfare-State-Were-James-Bartholomew/dp/1849544506/
Of course, in that case, it was cultural and not religious.
5 a day is one an hour...good luck with that.