A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
I'm suffering from no such thing. I don't want to 'protect' any ideology. And I'm not particularly off the left: in fact, most lefties on here call me a PB Tory.
"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."
Thereby showing your problem.
I think my main problem appears to be that you refuse to engage me on the logic on my argument.
Demonising people for criticising an ideology, which branding people as Islamophobes is no doubt doing is the very definition of protecting an ideology.
Please try to refute the above statement without resorting to the "and that shows your problem" nonsense.
I'm not trying to protect an ideology. I'm trying to be fair.
I'm sure you are, but people have a different view on what is fair or not so it always helps for it to be backed up by logical thought otherwise it degrades into a slanging match where accusations of -isms and -phobes are thrown about.
If certain criticisms of certain ideologies are shouted down for being a phobia and others aren't then how can that possibly be fair? What in your mind makes this situation a fair one?
I'm genuinely interested because it's a common mindset and I just don't understand it in the slightest.
Before I go back and do some real work, can I just say:
I absolutely hate this idea that people share some common trait - being a 'kipper or a Muslim or a Christian or whatever - are under some obligation to criticise people with the same trait for saying something stupid.
Socrates or Richard_Tyndall or whoever shouldn't be required to pop up and say "I disagree with x", just because the person who said it was a kipper. Likewise, Muslims shouldn't have to get up and say "I don't support ISIS". It is guilt by association, and it is disgusting and wrong.
Professor Fisher's updated GE 2015 seats projection this morning, based on polling averages of Con 31%, Lab 34%, LD 9%, Others 26% is as follows (showing changes over the past week):
The views of a lot of those people on the Telegraph comments are so extreme I'm sure they were members of the National Front and BNP when they were viable units. While these people support UKIP now and often believe in a sort of entryism to make UKIP into a racist, fascist party, they are likely banned from membership on account of their previous associations.
I agree with you that they make a problem for UKIP, but it's hard to know what UKIP can do about it. They don't know who these individuals are, and these individuals would probably not listen to them even if they were contacted. On the other hand, the media would probably make a big hoo-ha about any UKIP statement telling racist supporters to not be racist, which would be damaging to attracting more moderates.
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip member
it might be true that islamophobes use UKIP as a proxy for their sentiments, but I can't see there's much in UKIP's policy or what the leading lights say to encourage the phobes.
Controlling immigration from Europe would not influence islam in Britain at all.
Important to note the huge caveats about recording in this area, especially in terms of ethnicity. And there is no *data* with regards to 'Muslim grooming gangs' unless we strictly read 'Asian' as 'Muslim' (and again, the caveats re mis-recording/paucity of data are huge).
Also important to note that the Jay report on Rotherham was very explicit that the 'macho culture' within the police force and some parts of the local authority was as culpable (if not more so) than any 'PC' issues, which were at a more policy/political level (whereas the 'macho culture' was responsible for individual officers making unconscionable decisions when faced with individual victims). The failure of posters here to be as angry about the (ongoing) failings in safeguarding caused by that macho culture, as opposed to the visceral anger about the ethnicity of the perpetrators, is what (I think) makes others question peoples sincerity vs their desire to use this horror as a political football.
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
I'm suffering from no such thing. I don't want to 'protect' any ideology. And I'm not particularly off the left: in fact, most lefties on here call me a PB Tory.
"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."
Thereby showing your problem.
I think my main problem appears to be that you refuse to engage me on the logic on my argument.
Demonising people for criticising an ideology, which branding people as Islamophobes is no doubt doing is the very definition of protecting an ideology.
Please try to refute the above statement without resorting to the "and that shows your problem" nonsense.
I'm not trying to protect an ideology. I'm trying to be fair.
I'm sure you are, but people have a different view on what is fair or not so it always helps for it to be backed up by logical thought otherwise it degrades into a slanging match where accusations of -isms and -phobes are thrown about.
If certain criticisms of certain ideologies are shouted down for being a phobia and others aren't then how can that possibly be fair? What in your mind makes this situation a fair one?
I'm genuinely interested because it's a common mindset and I just don't understand it in the slightest.
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
The "dismount at roundabouts" policy looks particularly shit, I sometimes do if there is alot of traffic into a slightly uphill & busy roundabout with cycle provisions anyway (But it's a personal choice) ... and also us cyclists tend to avoid the really busy roads if possible.
The compulsory 3rd party/ID measure has also been floated around the likes of the Daily Mail/Heffer in an ostensibly anti-cycling rant piece - but perhaps it has some merit.
Anyway with car tax discs being done away with no need for a whacking great tax disc on your bike, and the reg plates that I've seen bandied about would interfere with the saddle bag.
Compulsory helmet wearing is a good idea, and a compulsory cycle course could probably work. It would be amusing to line up beside Chris Hoy or Bradley Wiggins if it was put in place though !
Professor Fisher's updated GE 2015 seats projection this morning, based on polling averages of Con 31%, Lab 34%, LD 9%, Others 26% is as follows (showing changes over the past week):
... the Tories get the most votes (with 34% to Labour’s 31.3%) but not the most seats (with 291 to Labour’s 298). That would leave Labour 28 seats short of a majority, while the Lib Dems would have 31 MPs in their best seats forecast since April.
Professor Fisher's updated GE 2015 seats projection this morning, based on polling averages of Con 31%, Lab 34%, LD 9%, Others 26% is as follows (showing changes over the past week):
The Catholic Church failed in two ways. A small number of their priests were responsible for reprehensible acts and the Church reacted defensively rather than taking action. What is important is that the Church chose to look the other way and allowed the priests to continue.
In Rotherham, the authorities also chose to to look the other way (probably the race of many of the participants played a part), and the rapes continued.
No one is accusing the Church critics of being Catholic-ophobes.
I'm Catholic and have no qualms about the uproar and criticism - it's thoroughly deserved. Why then do some people try to defend Rotherham by saying, it's not just Muslims? It's not just Catholic priests either, but that's no defence.
I'm sure you are, but people have a different view on what is fair or not so it always helps for it to be backed up by logical thought otherwise it degrades into a slanging match where accusations of -isms and -phobes are thrown about.
If certain criticisms of certain ideologies are shouted down for being a phobia and others aren't then how can that possibly be fair? What in your mind makes this situation a fair one?
I'm genuinely interested because it's a common mindset and I just don't understand it in the slightest.
You seem to be treating a religion the same as following a political party. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. for one thing, people change political allegiance much more readily than religious allegiance.
Although UKIP seems to be more of a football-club type allegiance at times (hence a few people shouting UKIP! UKIP! UKIP! on here).
If someone is consistently against something to the extent of being unreasonable and saying everything of that type is the same, then they can be called a '-phobe' For instance, I'm fairly Labour-phobe at the moment, although that might change if they change leader and become nicer (yes, I'm aware of the irony).
My initial point still stands. People Like Me who see the comments in the DT recoil from much of the sentiment expressed.
Such comments inform our views of what the active Kipperite is saying online. If they aren't Party members - why not? They're clearly very very committed, and we regularly see posts on here about how UKIP membership is rising. If any group were likely to be members - surely the DTers are fertile ground.
What makes you think that those on the DT board are somehow not Party members? I can see converted newbies in Clacton not being members yet - they're experiencing an epiphany/may fade away again after the rush of blood - but the regulars at the DT are very long in the tooth.
I'm quite sympathetic to several notions that UKIP raised in the past - I don't like the persecution of smokers for example, though I loathe the things myself.
You know I love you, but that's hand-waving. The DT is a huge newspaper and the behaviour of the Kippers commenting there is doing your Party no favours.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
I never bother reading the comments of any article really, not interested.
My point about the non kippers in McDonalds clacton wasn't that they were kippers that hadn't joined yet, it was they were SWP/HopeNotHate types that were doing what they did to give ukip a bad name.
I wouldn't have thought commenting on blogs was beyond them either
Important to note the huge caveats about recording in this area, especially in terms of ethnicity. And there is no *data* with regards to 'Muslim grooming gangs' unless we strictly read 'Asian' as 'Muslim' (and again, the caveats re mis-recording/paucity of data are huge).
Also important to note that the Jay report on Rotherham was very explicit that the 'macho culture' within the police force and some parts of the local authority was as culpable (if not more so) than any 'PC' issues, which were at a more policy/political level (whereas the 'macho culture' was responsible for individual officers making unconscionable decisions when faced with individual victims). The failure of posters here to be as angry about the (ongoing) failings in safeguarding caused by that macho culture, as opposed to the visceral anger about the ethnicity of the perpetrators, is what (I think) makes others question peoples sincerity vs their desire to use this horror as a political football.
Thanks for this. It's worth bearing in mind that while some "Asians" may have been from non-Muslim backgrounds, there are also Muslim-backgrounds that aren't Asian. I have seen Egyptian men in some of the cases, who would presumably go down as "white". Anyway, you're right that the full situation is still very unclear, especially as so many of the perpetrators are out walking the street and are not listed anywhere at all.
It just rams home the point that we need a full national investigation to get to the bottom of this. On this, there is a massive failure by central government, and the buck must stop at the top.
Before I go back and do some real work, can I just say:
I absolutely hate this idea that people share some common trait - being a 'kipper or a Muslim or a Christian or whatever - are under some obligation to criticise people with the same trait for saying something stupid.
Socrates or Richard_Tyndall or whoever shouldn't be required to pop up and say "I disagree with x", just because the person who said it was a kipper. Likewise, Muslims shouldn't have to get up and say "I don't support ISIS". It is guilt by association, and it is disgusting and wrong.
Absolutely agree
I have been told on here a couple of times that I ought to look at what the two people you mention have said and somehow use it as a guide to what I should think... As if!
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
I thought you were mucking about when you said the drivers were probably ukip supporters!!
If it's any consolation I am a cyclist too, I haven't had a car for a year or so and actually only for one year out of the last five
And I don't eat red meat...
And I've never been to church...
I'm in the wrong party!
I must say I didn't know ukip were anti cycling
UKIP's worst anti-cycling policy in their 2010 manifesto was:
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
Hopefully that will change. Even if it doesn't this time around perhaps UKIP has picked up more cycling members since 2010 and you can get the policy changed?
Professor Fisher's updated GE 2015 seats projection this morning, based on polling averages of Con 31%, Lab 34%, LD 9%, Others 26% is as follows (showing changes over the past week):
Plus 1 for The Greens (presumably). On this basis it seems that Prof. Fisher has it: SNP 8 + Plaid 2 + UKIP 1 + Greens 1 = 12 + NI 18 = 30 seats.
Thanks PfP.
Shouldn't the Kippers be on 5? That's about where PP have their 'line'.
I don't think Professor Fisher's excellent model works terribly well for UKIP, so I wouldn't take the central seat forecasts per se too seriously. The important point about his model is that it tells us how much shift from the current polling position we might reasonably expect, i.e. whether we should pile on to the betting markets on the basis that the polls as they stand now are likely to be good predictors.
The answer is still No:
Forecast Election Day Shares (with 95% Prediction Intervals) Con: 34.0% (±7.1, i.e. 27% – 41%) Lab: 31.3% (±5.2, i.e. 26% – 37%) LD: 12.0% (±7.2, i.e. 5% – 19%)
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
I thought you were mucking about when you said the drivers were probably ukip supporters!!
If it's any consolation I am a cyclist too, I haven't had a car for a year or so and actually only for one year out of the last five
And I don't eat red meat...
And I've never been to church...
I'm in the wrong party!
I must say I didn't know ukip were anti cycling
UKIP's worst anti-cycling policy in their 2010 manifesto was:
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
Hopefully that will change. Even if it doesn't this time around perhaps UKIP has picked up more cycling members since 2010 and you can get the policy changed?
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
I'm sure you are, but people have a different view on what is fair or not so it always helps for it to be backed up by logical thought otherwise it degrades into a slanging match where accusations of -isms and -phobes are thrown about.
If certain criticisms of certain ideologies are shouted down for being a phobia and others aren't then how can that possibly be fair? What in your mind makes this situation a fair one?
I'm genuinely interested because it's a common mindset and I just don't understand it in the slightest.
You seem to be treating a religion the same as following a political party. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. for one thing, people change political allegiance much more readily than religious allegiance.
Although UKIP seems to be more of a football-club type allegiance at times (hence a few people shouting UKIP! UKIP! UKIP! on here).
If someone is consistently against something to the extent of being unreasonable and saying everything of that type is the same, then they can be called a '-phobe' For instance, I'm fairly Labour-phobe at the moment, although that might change if they change leader and become nicer (yes, I'm aware of the irony).
In the same way, people can be -philes.
Ok nothing really to disagree with here, but what is the point that you're making?
Criticism is fine as long as the ideology in question is easy to change from? I really don't understand why that would make a difference. Using that logic any ideology that makes it almost impossible to extract yourself from using force would then be immune from criticism, which is obviously an absurd situation.
Not sure anyone is trying to defend people who are being unreasonable. The problem is agreeing what is reasonable and what isn't.
My initial point still stands. People Like Me who see the comments in the DT recoil from much of the sentiment expressed.
Such comments inform our views of what the active Kipperite is saying online. If they aren't Party members - why not? They're clearly very very committed, and we regularly see posts on here about how UKIP membership is rising. If any group were likely to be members - surely the DTers are fertile ground.
What makes you think that those on the DT board are somehow not Party members? I can see converted newbies in Clacton not being members yet - they're experiencing an epiphany/may fade away again after the rush of blood - but the regulars at the DT are very long in the tooth.
I'm quite sympathetic to several notions that UKIP raised in the past - I don't like the persecution of smokers for example, though I loathe the things myself.
I'm sure all these posters are quite delightful in person, but they give UKIP a very unattractive face to a soft-right Tory like me. It's the volume and the tone that's so off-putting.
I find those comments off-putting, but I simply don't find them representative of UKIP supporters at all.
The problem there is the culture the Telegraph have allowed to grow around their website comments, not UKIP.
The culture of a website is something the publisher can and should control. UKIP/UKIP voters don't have any control over what is published on the Telegraph's website.
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
People shoot their mouths off on all sorts of blogs. Should we assume that people who express asinine views on left-wing blogs are necessarily members of the Labour Party?
A link to a news story with an entirely neutral description of the story. JosiasJessop is as nutty on this issue as the NUS refusing to condemn ISIS because it would be Islamophobic.
I think he is suffering from Islamophobia-phobia. An absolutely vile affliction that causes him to judge people negatively purely from their Islamophobia.
Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers. What's next? Labourophobia, socialistophobia, greenophobia? Only a matter of time I imagine.
Protecting certain ideologies above others and trying to demonise anyone who criticises them is a sure fire way of showing that you don't have a logical argument. Therefore I expect the left to ramp up this particular way of debating even further.
I'm suffering from no such thing. I don't want to 'protect' any ideology. And I'm not particularly off the left: in fact, most lefties on here call me a PB Tory.
"Let's be honest the whole idea of branding anything as Islamophobia is completely bonkers."
Thereby showing your problem.
I think my main problem appears to be that you refuse to engage me on the logic on my argument.
Demonising people for criticising an ideology, which branding people as Islamophobes is no doubt doing is the very definition of protecting an ideology.
Please try to refute the above statement without resorting to the "and that shows your problem" nonsense.
I'm not trying to protect an ideology. I'm trying to be fair.
snip
I'm genuinely interested because it's a common mindset and I just don't understand it in the slightest.
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
I thought you were mucking about when you said the drivers were probably ukip supporters!!
If it's any consolation I am a cyclist too, I haven't had a car for a year or so and actually only for one year out of the last five
And I don't eat red meat...
And I've never been to church...
I'm in the wrong party!
I must say I didn't know ukip were anti cycling
UKIP's worst anti-cycling policy in their 2010 manifesto was:
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
Hopefully that will change. Even if it doesn't this time around perhaps UKIP has picked up more cycling members since 2010 and you can get the policy changed?
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
I can't imagine that the average kipper would approve of men shaving their legs or lycra.
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
I thought you were mucking about when you said the drivers were probably ukip supporters!!
If it's any consolation I am a cyclist too, I haven't had a car for a year or so and actually only for one year out of the last five
And I don't eat red meat...
And I've never been to church...
I'm in the wrong party!
I must say I didn't know ukip were anti cycling
UKIP's worst anti-cycling policy in their 2010 manifesto was:
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
Hopefully that will change. Even if it doesn't this time around perhaps UKIP has picked up more cycling members since 2010 and you can get the policy changed?
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
Are you going to stand as a candidate at the next GE ?
A registration number on a compulsory helmet? Obviously one would need to be close enough to run over the said cyclist for it to be seen... then again I've been run over by a cyclist on the pavement - and I wasn't even driving at the time.
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
The "dismount at roundabouts" policy looks particularly shit, I sometimes do if there is alot of traffic into a slightly uphill & busy roundabout with cycle provisions anyway (But it's a personal choice) ... and also us cyclists tend to avoid the really busy roads if possible.
The compulsory 3rd party/ID measure has also been floated around the likes of the Daily Mail/Heffer in an ostensibly anti-cycling rant piece - but perhaps it has some merit.
Anyway with car tax discs being done away with no need for a whacking great tax disc on your bike, and the reg plates that I've seen bandied about would interfere with the saddle bag.
Compulsory helmet wearing is a good idea, and a compulsory cycle course could probably work. It would be amusing to line up beside Chris Hoy or Bradley Wiggins if it was put in place though !
Professor Fisher's updated GE 2015 seats projection this morning, based on polling averages of Con 31%, Lab 34%, LD 9%, Others 26% is as follows (showing changes over the past week):
Plus 1 for The Greens (presumably). On this basis it seems that Prof. Fisher has it: SNP 8 + Plaid 2 + UKIP 1 + Greens 1 = 12 + NI 18 = 30 seats.
Thanks PfP.
Shouldn't the Kippers be on 5? That's about where PP have their 'line'.
I don't think Professor Fisher's excellent model works terribly well for UKIP, so I wouldn't take the central seat forecasts per se too seriously. The important point about his model is that it tells us how much shift from the current polling position we might reasonably expect, i.e. whether we should pile on to the betting markets on the basis that the polls as they stand now are likely to be good predictors.
The answer is still No:
Forecast Election Day Shares (with 95% Prediction Intervals) Con: 34.0% (±7.1, i.e. 27% – 41%) Lab: 31.3% (±5.2, i.e. 26% – 37%) LD: 12.0% (±7.2, i.e. 5% – 19%)
More fully: Forecast Election Day Shares (with 95% Prediction Intervals) Con: 34.0% (±7.1, i.e. 27% – 41%) Lab: 31.3% (±5.2, i.e. 26% – 37%) LD: 12.0% (±7.2, i.e. 5% – 19%) Implied point estimate shares for: – Others (inc. UKIP): 22.7% – UKIP: 14.8%
On this, there is a massive failure by central government, and the buck must stop at the top.
The labour party is to blame. They firstly imported the Pakistani muslim community for votes and then made it above the law through political correctness.
In the case of the Catholic church, the priests were in a privileged position. The suggestion from the Jay report is that because of some elements of PC, and straight forward politics,some Muslim men found themselves in a privileged position.
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
...
I never bother reading the comments of any article really, not interested.
My point about the non kippers in McDonalds clacton wasn't that they were kippers that hadn't joined yet, it was they were SWP/HopeNotHate types that were doing what they did to give ukip a bad name.
I wouldn't have thought commenting on blogs was beyond them either
I'm the exact opposite. I find the below the line comments more interesting, and often more informative, than the article above -especially if the online publication in question is the DT.
It stands to reason. How can one commentator's (often rather suspect) account of current events compete with a lively debate from other interested parties, all of whom have an active interest and many of whom have directly applicable life experiences. Fantastic, and of an exceptional quality as PB's editorial content is, would we be as bigger fans if it weren't for the comments feature?
As a seperate point, 'disinfo' in the form of both online contributors and people behaving disgustingly in the public sphere to discredit particular movements is a very real phenomenon. Where it occurs and there is evidence it needs to be challenged and exposed. One of the uglier aspects of our modern politics.
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
I thought you were mucking about when you said the drivers were probably ukip supporters!!
If it's any consolation I am a cyclist too, I haven't had a car for a year or so and actually only for one year out of the last five
And I don't eat red meat...
And I've never been to church...
I'm in the wrong party!
I must say I didn't know ukip were anti cycling
UKIP's worst anti-cycling policy in their 2010 manifesto was:
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
Hopefully that will change. Even if it doesn't this time around perhaps UKIP has picked up more cycling members since 2010 and you can get the policy changed?
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
Are you going to stand as a candidate at the next GE ?
Why do you think that the model doesn't 'work' for UKIP?
Because he hasn't really got much relevant historical data to plug into it in respect of UKIP.
I guess that nobody has. It really depends how evenly spread the 14.8% is. I'm guessing that they'll keep Clacton and Rochester if they win it, but they'll tend towards the mean elsewhere, for example I'm expecting the Tories to come second to the LibDems in Eastleigh.
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
Are you going to stand as a candidate at the next GE ?
It's not a million to one
Go for it - nothing like getting involved in on the ground democracy :-)
As a favour, even if the seats a long shot for UKIP, we'll all pile in with Shadsy so that you can put out 'odds shortening on the UKIP candidate' mailshots etc.
Why do you think that the model doesn't 'work' for UKIP?
Because he hasn't really got much relevant historical data to plug into it in respect of UKIP.
I guess that nobody has. It really depends how evenly spread the 14.8% is. I'm guessing that they'll keep Clacton and Rochester if they win it, but they'll tend towards the mean elsewhere, for example I'm expecting the Tories to come second to the LibDems in Eastleigh.
There are actually two separate problems. One is, as you say, the distribution of support. The second is the national vote share and how we might expect that to shift between the polling now and the election (which is the main point of Professor Fisher's model in respect of the other parties). Both are hard to assess.
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
...
I never bother reading the comments of any article really, not interested.
My point about the non kippers in McDonalds clacton wasn't that they were kippers that hadn't joined yet, it was they were SWP/HopeNotHate types that were doing what they did to give ukip a bad name.
I wouldn't have thought commenting on blogs was beyond them either
I'm the exact opposite. I find the below the line comments more interesting, and often more informative, than the article above -especially if the online publication in question is the DT.
It stands to reason. How can one commentator's (often rather suspect) account of current events compete with a lively debate from other interested parties, all of whom have an active interest and many of whom have directly applicable life experiences. Fantastic, and of an exceptional quality as PB's editorial content is, would we be as bigger fans if it weren't for the comments feature?
As a seperate point, 'disinfo' in the form of both online contributors and people behaving disgustingly in the public sphere to discredit particular movements is a very real phenomenon. Where it occurs and there is evidence it needs to be challenged and exposed. One of the uglier aspects of our modern politics.
Please ignore the atrocious grammar in this post. Thank God it's Friday...
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
...
I never bother reading the comments of any article really, not interested.
My point about the non kippers in McDonalds clacton wasn't that they were kippers that hadn't joined yet, it was they were SWP/HopeNotHate types that were doing what they did to give ukip a bad name.
I wouldn't have thought commenting on blogs was beyond them either
I'm the exact opposite. I find the below the line comments more interesting, and often more informative, than the article above -especially if the online publication in question is the DT.
It stands to reason. How can one commentator's (often rather suspect) account of current events compete with a lively debate from other interested parties, all of whom have an active interest and many of whom have directly applicable life experiences. Fantastic, and of an exceptional quality as PB's editorial content is, would we be as bigger fans if it weren't for the comments feature?
As a seperate point, 'disinfo' in the form of both online contributors and people behaving disgustingly in the public sphere to discredit particular movements is a very real phenomenon. Where it occurs and there is evidence it needs to be challenged and exposed. One of the uglier aspects of our modern politics.
Well it happened in clacton
And it happened in Thurrock yesterday
Tim Aker MEP (@Tim_Aker) 16/10/2014 19:20 Shocking to hear Labour activists in #wtss by-election speak of UKIP wanting gas chambers to voters today. Please condemn @ThurrockPolly?
No one on here has condemned either... Am I supposed to tick every non kipper off and assume they all agree?!?!?!
A cyclist in Exeter was seriously injured last winter after someone did something like that across a cycle bridge over the river. Parris is a dangerous twat.
However, there do seem to be quite a decent number of Tory politicians who are supportive of cycling, and there's been some promising progress from the Coalition, so taking things in the balance I don't think that the Conservative party is a threat to cyclist's.
I just don't see anything positive about cycling from UKIP, or UKIP politicians to counter all the negative things that I have heard.
UKIP are probably too busy countering the constant media exaggeration of racism to deal with their supposed anti-cycling bigotry.
They had time to craft a whole bunch of anti-cycling policies for the 2010 election. They have had time to put together an overview of policies for 2015, which as yet say nothing about cycling.
Maybe they will change their position for the 2015GE, but how else am I supposed to judge their cycling policy?
And given the reactions I have had from a small minority of drivers to my presence on the roads, I think I am perfectly right to fear what would happen if they were encouraged in their views by an anti-cycling [UKIP] government.
Your trying to belittle that judgement of mine by saying that I have accused UKIP of "anti-cycling bigotry" demeans you. Some criticism of UKIP might possibly be valid, you know. I don't agree with every single Green Party policy.
I thought you were mucking about when you said the drivers were probably ukip supporters!!
If it's any consolation I am a cyclist too, I haven't had a car for a year or so and actually only for one year out of the last five
And I don't eat red meat...
And I've never been to church...
I'm in the wrong party!
I must say I didn't know ukip were anti cycling
UKIP's worst anti-cycling policy in their 2010 manifesto was:
10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic
Hopefully that will change. Even if it doesn't this time around perhaps UKIP has picked up more cycling members since 2010 and you can get the policy changed?
Maybe it's just me, (and I'm not a regular cyclist) but I'm not sure what's wrong about that.
A registration number on a compulsory helmet? Obviously one would need to be close enough to run over the said cyclist for it to be seen... then again I've been run over by a cyclist on the pavement - and I wasn't even driving at the time.
Hmm something that clips on to the seat tube, just below the seat collar but above the top tube would be best. It wouldn't be that visible but nothing could be on a bike due to space considerations and also positions/suggestions that might sound sensible (Helmet, under seat, front handlebars) may be unworkable due to say aero-bars, TT helmet designs, saddle bag configurations.
As both an occasional horse rider and more frequent cyclist seeing other cyclists and horses on the pavements is annoying, though specific cycle paths don't always have to be used - there is a dual use cycle path near my house on a hill which if I were to head down it could end up in death/serious injury. Heading down the hill on the road, and up the hill on the cycle path is the sensible option.
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
Are you going to stand as a candidate at the next GE ?
It's not a million to one
Go for it - nothing like getting involved in on the ground democracy :-)
As a favour, even if the seats a long shot for UKIP, we'll all pile in with Shadsy so that you can put out 'odds shortening on the UKIP candidate' mailshots etc.
Thanks i am in the process of going for it!
Unfortunately my constituency, and all around are all taken... I would love to be the candidate for Hornchurch & Upminster or Dagenham & Rainham ... Maybe in 2020!
Would love to do a Clement Freud and pay my constituency costs with the proceeds of backing myself to win the seat,
Before I go back and do some real work, can I just say:
I absolutely hate this idea that people share some common trait - being a 'kipper or a Muslim or a Christian or whatever - are under some obligation to criticise people with the same trait for saying something stupid.
Socrates or Richard_Tyndall or whoever shouldn't be required to pop up and say "I disagree with x", just because the person who said it was a kipper. Likewise, Muslims shouldn't have to get up and say "I don't support ISIS". It is guilt by association, and it is disgusting and wrong.
' it's lazy and unfair, if not worse, to judge individuals as part of a bloc'
But that's exactly what Labour does with its class war hatred of toffs.
No, you're doing it too ("all Labour people are like this"). It's what some Labour people do (sometimes including people writing a leaflet!). I don't, and never have, even in my Communist days, and I disagree with Labour people who do. People have starting points of upbringing etc. which may be helpful or otherwise in understanding others, but what they do with them is up to them. Benn was indubitably a toff, but you won't find many left-wingers who hated him for it. Obviously a toff who spends his time defending the virtues of privilege is someone I'd disagree with, but not because he's a toff, rather because he's not made the effort to think out of his box.
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
Are you going to stand as a candidate at the next GE ?
It's not a million to one
Go for it - nothing like getting involved in on the ground democracy :-)
As a favour, even if the seats a long shot for UKIP, we'll all pile in with Shadsy so that you can put out 'odds shortening on the UKIP candidate' mailshots etc.
Thanks i am in the process of going for it!
Unfortunately my constituency, and all around are all taken... I would love to be the candidate for Hornchurch & Upminster or Dagenham & Rainham ... Maybe in 2020!
Would love to do a Clement Freud and pay my constituency costs with the proceeds of backing myself to win the seat,
Does UKIP have a vetting process, shortlisting and adoption meetings for PPCs?
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
Are you going to stand as a candidate at the next GE ?
It's not a million to one
Go for it - nothing like getting involved in on the ground democracy :-)
As a favour, even if the seats a long shot for UKIP, we'll all pile in with Shadsy so that you can put out 'odds shortening on the UKIP candidate' mailshots etc.
Thanks i am in the process of going for it!
Unfortunately my constituency, and all around are all taken... I would love to be the candidate for Hornchurch & Upminster or Dagenham & Rainham ... Maybe in 2020!
Would love to do a Clement Freud and pay my constituency costs with the proceeds of backing myself to win the seat,
Does UKIP have a vetting process, shortlisting and adoption meetings for PPCs?
Looking at the details of today's populus, the 2010 C,L&LD transfers to L are all down; in particular there is a very low LD to L switch. In contrast there is a significantly higher 2010LD to LD retention.
Is this evidence of Labour's crutch being kicked away, or is it random polling noise?
One of the good things about the Labour attacks on the Tories is that the lovely word 'toff', which had all but disappeared from the English language, has now reappeared.
Sigh... That's me being fined / imprisoned every day if that law ever comes in.
Would you put on a seatbelt when a passenger in a car?
Yes. Do you wear a cycle helmet when walking down the street?
No.
It's not the law too. Nor do I travel at the speeds a bicycle can reach. Nor do I run the risk of going over the handlebars and smashing my head open.
But other than that, good point.
Currently not the law when cycling either. My point was that more pedestrians incur head injuries than cyclists. Don't really want to go into this again on here unless you really want to - but cycle helmets haven't been proved to have any positive effect on injury reduction, but compulsory helmet laws have been proved to have a detrimental effect on numbers cycling.
Looks like some people have taken the advice about Castle Point being a probable UKIP gain. Not many seats now that are a probable or possible UKIP win with generous odds left. Perhaps the last ones are Cambridgeshire NE and Walsall North.
No one on here has condemned either... Am I supposed to tick every non kipper off and assume they all agree?!?!?!
I'd suck it up if I were you.
Guido reckons UKIP got taught a lesson in Thurrock overnight - they need to learn it.
Guido is talking rubbish there
I hope the bookies read "order-order" though, and ease UKIPs price because I'll smash it back into shape
The ward contested is the most Labour friendly in the constituency.. the Labour councillor died, and the vote percentages were barely changed (Lab +.1.4 UKIP -0.7?) with no LD candidate
As I said, I spoke to the UKIP candidate for the GE last week and he said he didn't expect UKIP to win last night, calling it their least friendly ward & if they did it would more or less mean the GE seat was in the bag
Re the JJ thread about UKIP/Islam, my son is gay and finds those who seem unwilling to criticise Islam for its attitude to gay people and Islamic reactionaries far more threatening than UKIP. The latter don't go round preaching that gays should be killed. And don't even get my daughter started on the attitude to women.
I do not support UKIP and do not particularly share or like their view of the world, insofar as I can understand it. But ISIS and its ilk and those who support them and appease them are - if we allow them to get a toehold - a far greater threat to Western civilization than the Godfrey Blooms of this world.
Mr. Punter, for the losing side, it's just a by-election. For the winning side, a huge moment in British politics (either the first receding of the purple tide or a second historic victory for the purples).
Sigh... That's me being fined / imprisoned every day if that law ever comes in.
Would you put on a seatbelt when a passenger in a car?
Yes. Do you wear a cycle helmet when walking down the street?
No.
It's not the law too. Nor do I travel at the speeds a bicycle can reach. Nor do I run the risk of going over the handlebars and smashing my head open.
But other than that, good point.
Currently not the law when cycling either. My point was that more pedestrians incur head injuries than cyclists. Don't really want to go into this again on here unless you really want to - but cycle helmets haven't been proved to have any positive effect on injury reduction, but compulsory helmet laws have been proved to have a detrimental effect on numbers cycling.
No we don't need to go into this, but let me just ask you this:-
Forget the statistics, the arguments, the pros and the cons and consider one moment; the moment you are flying off your bicycle at high speed towards a hard surface. In that instant would you be better off, or worse off, wearing a cycle helmet?
One of the good things about the Labour attacks on the Tories is that the lovely word 'toff', which had all but disappeared from the English language, has now reappeared.
Mr. Punter, for the losing side, it's just a by-election. For the winning side, a huge moment in British politics (either the first receding of the purple tide or a second historic victory for the purples).
Well yes, and at the moment my impression is that UKIP are acting like winners, and the Tories like losers.
Labour of course surrendered before a shot was fired. Tactical, of course.
I pay to read The Times' BTL comments. They're often much more interesting than the piece above - see the opprobrium heaped on Philip Collins today re his views on the 'pensions gravy train'. And can be extremely amusing/informed.
I read the DT a lot before the Kippers took over - I now very rarely do as there's little in the reader comments to add that extra dimension. My heart sank when a bunch of them moved into The Times. I'm all for reading informed views or even one-eyed ones so long as there's a balance. The DT is an echo chamber now, more akin to a private Kipper Club. There's more variety at the Guardian, which I didn't think I'd ever believe was possible.
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
...
I never bother reading the comments of any article really, not interested.
My point about the non kippers in McDonalds clacton wasn't that they were kippers that hadn't joined yet, it was they were SWP/HopeNotHate types that were doing what they did to give ukip a bad name.
I wouldn't have thought commenting on blogs was beyond them either
I'm the exact opposite. I find the below the line comments more interesting, and often more informative, than the article above -especially if the online publication in question is the DT.
It stands to reason. How can one commentator's (often rather suspect) account of current events compete with a lively debate from other interested parties, all of whom have an active interest and many of whom have directly applicable life experiences. Fantastic, and of an exceptional quality as PB's editorial content is, would we be as bigger fans if it weren't for the comments feature?
As a seperate point, 'disinfo' in the form of both online contributors and people behaving disgustingly in the public sphere to discredit particular movements is a very real phenomenon. Where it occurs and there is evidence it needs to be challenged and exposed. One of the uglier aspects of our modern politics.
Professor Fisher's updated GE 2015 seats projection this morning, based on polling averages of Con 31%, Lab 34%, LD 9%, Others 26% is as follows (showing changes over the past week):
Plus 1 for The Greens (presumably). On this basis it seems that Prof. Fisher has it: SNP 8 + Plaid 2 + UKIP 1 + Greens 1 = 12 + NI 18 = 30 seats.
Thanks PfP.
Shouldn't the Kippers be on 5? That's about where PP have their 'line'.
I don't think Professor Fisher's excellent model works terribly well for UKIP, so I wouldn't take the central seat forecasts per se too seriously. The important point about his model is that it tells us how much shift from the current polling position we might reasonably expect, i.e. whether we should pile on to the betting markets on the basis that the polls as they stand now are likely to be good predictors.
The answer is still No:
Forecast Election Day Shares (with 95% Prediction Intervals) Con: 34.0% (±7.1, i.e. 27% – 41%) Lab: 31.3% (±5.2, i.e. 26% – 37%) LD: 12.0% (±7.2, i.e. 5% – 19%)
More fully: Forecast Election Day Shares (with 95% Prediction Intervals) Con: 34.0% (±7.1, i.e. 27% – 41%) Lab: 31.3% (±5.2, i.e. 26% – 37%) LD: 12.0% (±7.2, i.e. 5% – 19%) Implied point estimate shares for: – Others (inc. UKIP): 22.7% – UKIP: 14.8%
Re the JJ thread about UKIP/Islam, my son is gay and finds those who seem unwilling to criticise Islam for its attitude to gay people and Islamic reactionaries far more threatening than UKIP. The latter don't go round preaching that gays should be killed. And don't even get my daughter started on the attitude to women.
I do not support UKIP and do not particularly share or like their view of the world, insofar as I can understand it. But ISIS and its ilk and those who support them and appease them are - if we allow them to get a toehold - a far greater threat to Western civilization than the Godfrey Blooms of this world.
Criticism should be made of those of any religion (or none) who are routinely prejudiced and intolerant against gays and other groups. But your comment highlights the problem: it assumes that *all* Islam has a poor attitude to gay people (and therefore all Muslims), and has " Islamic reactionaries" in the same sentence, and then follows it up by saying that they preach that gays should be killed.
I know that's what you meant, but it's how it reads.
And I agree about ISIS. But the problem is people differentiating between ISIS and Islam, and Islam and people from Islamic countries, and then using ISIS to beat up on Islam and foreigners in general.
Great quiz question by Dr Sunil By process of elimination, it must be the Tories. Labour's share actually went up slightly in Heywood, so it's not them. It's clearly not the Kippers after their home run in Clacton. And Sunil has already given us a clue that it's not the Liberals. Therefore it must be the Tories that have seen a falling share in every single one of the 18 GB byelections in this parliament.
Sigh... That's me being fined / imprisoned every day if that law ever comes in.
Would you put on a seatbelt when a passenger in a car?
Yes. Do you wear a cycle helmet when walking down the street?
No.
It's not the law too. Nor do I travel at the speeds a bicycle can reach. Nor do I run the risk of going over the handlebars and smashing my head open.
But other than that, good point.
Currently not the law when cycling either. My point was that more pedestrians incur head injuries than cyclists. Don't really want to go into this again on here unless you really want to - but cycle helmets haven't been proved to have any positive effect on injury reduction, but compulsory helmet laws have been proved to have a detrimental effect on numbers cycling.
No we don't need to go into this, but let me just ask you this:-
Forget the statistics, the arguments, the pros and the cons and consider one moment; the moment you are flying off your bicycle at high speed towards a hard surface. In that instant would you be better off, or worse off, wearing a cycle helmet?
You can even change me to 'my wife' and my answer still doesn't change.
Realistically, it entirely depends on the situation. Typically if you have an 'over the handlebars' type accident from (say) a pothole then you will slide along the road surface rather than have a sudden stop. In such a scenario a helmet will prevent your head getting scratched, but without it you will still be able to walk away (and the scratches on the rest of your body are usually worse anyway). If you have any incident of any sort where you go under a motor vehicle in any way, a helmet is utterly useless.
The controversial one is the one that is actually pretty uncommon - you go over the handlebars and freakishly hit a lamppost, or a tree, or some other solid and fixed object head-first. If this is a solid object such as a wall then a helmet may help. If it is a pole type object (like a lamp-post) then it may make things much worse as the rounded non-abrasive nature of the helmet has the potential to convert direct impact forces (which actually the head is reasonably good at dealing with relatively speaking) into rotational torque (which the spine is much less good at dealing with)
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
Are you going to stand as a candidate at the next GE ?
It's not a million to one
Go for it - nothing like getting involved in on the ground democracy :-)
As a favour, even if the seats a long shot for UKIP, we'll all pile in with Shadsy so that you can put out 'odds shortening on the UKIP candidate' mailshots etc.
Thanks i am in the process of going for it!
Unfortunately my constituency, and all around are all taken... I would love to be the candidate for Hornchurch & Upminster or Dagenham & Rainham ... Maybe in 2020!
Would love to do a Clement Freud and pay my constituency costs with the proceeds of backing myself to win the seat,
Does UKIP have a vetting process, shortlisting and adoption meetings for PPCs?
You would have to say it is not rigorous though. This guy was selected as UKIP's Westminster candidate in Camborne and Redruth last weeK; this week, deselected because he faces jail for pleading guilty to animal cruelty over the deaths of 260 sheep.
I assume that the posters you have an issue with are similar to the Guido posters -very anti-PC, very macho in style, lots of black/schoolboy humour, lots of anger. The way I see it, these were Tories -Guido used to be quite a Tory place, as did the DT I guess, but have been thoroughly disillusioned by Cameron and have gone UKIP.
I suppose what you get from their posts and the allowances you make for their aggressive posting style depends on how aligned you are with their political outlook. I quite like it when a DT columnist has written the sort of craven and illogical war-drum peice 'We must attack Russia or we'll all be eating Borscht soon' they tend to specialise in these days, and it gets comprehensively (and rudely) rubbished in the comments. Hence them not allowing comments when they know they've written flagrant rubbish on Syria or the like any more. I can see how others wouldn't though.
The French consulate seem to think so.. but then again...
"The consulate defines London as the city plus "the south eastern quadrant of the UK including Kent, Oxfordshire and maybe Sussex too".
This is quite a generous description of the London area - it includes Oxford, a city in its own right about 60 miles away from London. Kent and Sussex meanwhile, stretch right down to the English Channel"
But however many there are, I don't want to make a fuss about that.
@Currystar has started an argument with me on here before accusing me of hypocrisy because I don't believe in repatriation, so its hard to think I'm on a winner getting involved
Just saw on twitter that Farage called Rochester & Strood the most important by election in 30 years.
Interesting.
Equally interesting was Redwood referring to it yesterday as '...just a by-election.'
Expectations management?
Preparing for the inevitable like Clacton again?
The thought crossed my mind but of course it would be far too early to tell.
I was surprised how diffident Redwood appeared. Otoh, we had OGH on here yesterday stating that the Conservatives were throwing everything at it.
Not sure.
I don't think Redwood much cares if Reckless wins. He isn't a likely defector himself, but I imagine he's not distressed by the progress of UKIP -why would someone in his position be?
The French consulate seem to think so.. but then again...
"The consulate defines London as the city plus "the south eastern quadrant of the UK including Kent, Oxfordshire and maybe Sussex too".
This is quite a generous description of the London area - it includes Oxford, a city in its own right about 60 miles away from London. Kent and Sussex meanwhile, stretch right down to the English Channel"
But however many there are, I don't want to make a fuss about that.
@Currystar has started an argument with me on here before accusing me of hypocrisy because I don't believe in repatriation, so its hard to think I'm on a winner getting involved
I pay to read The Times' BTL comments. They're often much more interesting than the piece above - see the opprobrium heaped on Philip Collins today re his views on the 'pensions gravy train'. And can be extremely amusing/informed.
I read the DT a lot before the Kippers took over - I now very rarely do as there's little in the reader comments to add that extra dimension. My heart sank when a bunch of them moved into The Times. I'm all for reading informed views or even one-eyed ones so long as there's a balance. The DT is an echo chamber now, more akin to a private Kipper Club. There's more variety at the Guardian, which I didn't think I'd ever believe was possible.
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
...
I never bother reading the comments of any article really, not interested.
My point about the non kippers in McDonalds clacton wasn't that they were kippers that hadn't joined yet, it was they were SWP/HopeNotHate types that were doing what they did to give ukip a bad name.
I wouldn't have thought commenting on blogs was beyond them either
I'm the exact opposite. I find the below the line comments more interesting, and often more informative, than the article above -especially if the online publication in question is the DT.
It stands to reason. How can one commentator's (often rather suspect) account of current events compete with a lively debate from other interested parties, all of whom have an active interest and many of whom have directly applicable life experiences. Fantastic, and of an exceptional quality as PB's editorial content is, would we be as bigger fans if it weren't for the comments feature?
As a seperate point, 'disinfo' in the form of both online contributors and people behaving disgustingly in the public sphere to discredit particular movements is a very real phenomenon. Where it occurs and there is evidence it needs to be challenged and exposed. One of the uglier aspects of our modern politics.
News articles in the serious papers seem to include opinions rather than news more than they once did. Even the Guardian has fallen into this habit.
Newspapers need to be much more rigourous about separating opinion from news if they are to be respected.
If a law like that came in they'd have nowhere to go in refusing to pay VED.
Once a bike starts getting three feet of space outside it, while also being ridden three feet from kerb, it's occupying the same width of road as a car. Only it's moving more slowly and thus forces everything behind it to travel just as slowly.
From the 1980/82 survey cycle to the final one in 2006/09, average weekday traffic speeds in Greater London fell by 18 per cent in the morning peak period, by 14 per cent in the interpeak period, and by 12 per cent in the evening peak period.... despite congestion charging, weekday morning peak speeds fell by 23 per cent over this three decade period.
So traffic speeds have been falling, and the fall was worst where there has been congestion charging. But what about traffic composition? Well unfortunately for the anti-car brigade car journeys have fallen, bus and bike journeys have risen. You'd think getting all those nasty cars off the road would solve the congestion problem for which falling traffic speeds are a proxy. Yet driving cars off the road actually slows traffic down. Which makes perfect sense if some of those car journeys result in road-blocking cyclists and even more buses.
What I don't recognise is that I and people like me are racist loons who want to live in the 1950s and attempts to cast me as such are counter productive.
So sharing a roasted black baby with me is off the cards then? I was hoping that if I came dressed in a gym slip this would be appropriate attire too. Damnit.
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
I think Kippers bear it as a badge of pride - if they're drawing the opprobrium of 'LibLabCon' - especially the BBC - then it proves, to them, that they are doing something correctly.
I didn't see last nights QT - did Labour really put both their feet into their mouths regarding Freud and, if so, what did Dimbleby do to reduce the damage?
On the 'centre ground'. This is interesting. I wonder if the belief in where it lies, according to our current political leadership, is partly a function of our lack of social mobility.
The majority (in some cases, the vast majority) of politicians, journalists, media producers, academics, think-tank researchers and NGO staffers we have today went to Russell Group universities; Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol, Nottingham, Exeter, Warwick, York, LSE, UCL and Imperial.
It is no coincidence that those same professions are dominated by graduates of those universities. It is also hardly surprising that the politicians think the centre-ground is pro-EU and relaxed on immigration: the reports they write, and the conversations they hold (both socially and professionally) are largely to or with one each other.
To take my example, I went to the University of Bristol. In my peer group, the vast majority were on the soft-left. Including my friends. Only around 20-25% were on the centre-right (although I suspect a few more were economically liberal, but did not advertise it)
Upon graduation, almost everyone moved to London. Except me. My "cohort" split itself fairly evenly between law, banking, consultancy, and academia. A couple joined the armed forces and one or two into engineering. A few (not many to be fair) also went into media/think-tanks and parliamentary research.
Both socially, and professionally, we still all mix with one another. I notice that other graduates of other Russell Group universities have more or less done the same thing. As time as moved on, views have diverged economically (we do get a bit of debate on welfare reform, tax cuts etc.) but there's a striking degree of consensus on other issues.
Those are: that's it's insane to even contemplate leaving the EU, immigration is unquestionably a good thing, a concern about AGW, and a general internationalist spirit and cultural social liberalism. They almost all detest and mock UKIP. The fastest way to get yourself ostracised from future gatherings would be to argue against gay marriage.
So - given the way our society is dominated by these types, and concentrated in London - is it any surprise our leaders view it as the centre-ground?
Criticism should be made of those of any religion (or none) who are routinely prejudiced and intolerant against gays and other groups. But your comment highlights the problem: it assumes that *all* Islam has a poor attitude to gay people (and therefore all Muslims), and has " Islamic reactionaries" in the same sentence, and then follows it up by saying that they preach that gays should be killed.
I know that's what you meant, but it's how it reads.
And I agree about ISIS. But the problem is people differentiating between ISIS and Islam, and Islam and people from Islamic countries, and then using ISIS to beat up on Islam and foreigners in general.
You say we need to differentiate, but I never hear from you, or those who espouse similar views, the terminology needed to make such a differentiation. All that's usually offered is a mealy mouthed reference to 'fundamentalism' or 'extremism' vs. 'moderate' Islam, which attempts to falsely conflate Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. Why this happens is another debate, but the result is actually to undermine the user's own argument, because it portrays 'ISIS' and its ilk as on a continuum from the 'average' Muslim, just more extreme, or even a 'truer' Muslim. So this argument claims to be in defence of Islam, but its actual outcome is to subtly do the opposite.
This is odd to say the least, because in fact ISIS *are* within a very seperate and defined sphere of Islam, called Wahhabism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement . However, even Blair in his philosophical musings on the 'true' Islam and the 'distorted' versions of it, never really touched on Wahhabism. And I believe that the reason for this is that to do so would be to openly challenge the source of Wahhabism, and the source of the spread of Sharia, and the source of radicalisation of Mosques, and the source of terror attacks, and the source of Syrian 'rebels', and the source of mediaval mistreatment of women -namely our allies Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent Qatar. To do so would raise far too many questions about our own foreign (and indeed domestic) policy. The plain reality is, we're buddied up with the wrong Muslims. That's why no-one is 'differentiating' between ISIS and Muslims in the way you call for.
Re the JJ thread about UKIP/Islam, my son is gay and finds those who seem unwilling to criticise Islam for its attitude to gay people and Islamic reactionaries far more threatening than UKIP. The latter don't go round preaching that gays should be killed. And don't even get my daughter started on the attitude to women.
I do not support UKIP and do not particularly share or like their view of the world, insofar as I can understand it. But ISIS and its ilk and those who support them and appease them are - if we allow them to get a toehold - a far greater threat to Western civilization than the Godfrey Blooms of this world.
Judging by opinion polls, I would say that the vast majority of Muslims in the world have unpleasant attitudes towards gay people.
I should also add that the one social group it seems acceptable to sneer at is the traditional white working class. Words like stupid, thick, ignorant, bigoted and uneducated are often thrown in to the mix. There's also a thinly veiled classism sometimes, in a way that would never happen with gender, race or sexual orientation.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
The French consulate seem to think so.. but then again...
"The consulate defines London as the city plus "the south eastern quadrant of the UK including Kent, Oxfordshire and maybe Sussex too".
This is quite a generous description of the London area - it includes Oxford, a city in its own right about 60 miles away from London. Kent and Sussex meanwhile, stretch right down to the English Channel"
But however many there are, I don't want to make a fuss about that.
@Currystar has started an argument with me on here before accusing me of hypocrisy because I don't believe in repatriation, so its hard to think I'm on a winner getting involved
The French Consulate understates for chauvinistic motives, we're looking at 500,000 French in London and 300,000 in the Home Counties;
"The Foreign Ministry recorded 1.6 million expats at the end of last year. But that figure only includes people who had registered at French consulates abroad. “So the real figure is twice as high,” says Hélène Charveriat, the delegate-general of the Union of French Citizens Abroad."
Comments
At least Mr Allen was only missing a bit of one finger...
I absolutely hate this idea that people share some common trait - being a 'kipper or a Muslim or a Christian or whatever - are under some obligation to criticise people with the same trait for saying something stupid.
Socrates or Richard_Tyndall or whoever shouldn't be required to pop up and say "I disagree with x", just because the person who said it was a kipper. Likewise, Muslims shouldn't have to get up and say "I don't support ISIS". It is guilt by association, and it is disgusting and wrong.
SNP 8 + Plaid 2 + UKIP 1 + Greens 1 = 12 + NI 18 = 30 seats.
The views of a lot of those people on the Telegraph comments are so extreme I'm sure they were members of the National Front and BNP when they were viable units. While these people support UKIP now and often believe in a sort of entryism to make UKIP into a racist, fascist party, they are likely banned from membership on account of their previous associations.
I agree with you that they make a problem for UKIP, but it's hard to know what UKIP can do about it. They don't know who these individuals are, and these individuals would probably not listen to them even if they were contacted. On the other hand, the media would probably make a big hoo-ha about any UKIP statement telling racist supporters to not be racist, which would be damaging to attracting more moderates.
it might be true that islamophobes use UKIP as a proxy for their sentiments, but I can't see there's much in UKIP's policy or what the leading lights say to encourage the phobes.
Controlling immigration from Europe would not influence islam in Britain at all.
https://fullfact.org/crime/sex_offender_asian_white_proportion_grooming_rotherham-34810
Important to note the huge caveats about recording in this area, especially in terms of ethnicity. And there is no *data* with regards to 'Muslim grooming gangs' unless we strictly read 'Asian' as 'Muslim' (and again, the caveats re mis-recording/paucity of data are huge).
Also important to note that the Jay report on Rotherham was very explicit that the 'macho culture' within the police force and some parts of the local authority was as culpable (if not more so) than any 'PC' issues, which were at a more policy/political level (whereas the 'macho culture' was responsible for individual officers making unconscionable decisions when faced with individual victims). The failure of posters here to be as angry about the (ongoing) failings in safeguarding caused by that macho culture, as opposed to the visceral anger about the ethnicity of the perpetrators, is what (I think) makes others question peoples sincerity vs their desire to use this horror as a political football.
(This blog gives a very good insight into some of the challenges of child protection, especially the Storify of her responses to the Jay report as she read it: http://itsmotherswork.wordpress.com/?s=rotherham&submit=Search )
The compulsory 3rd party/ID measure has also been floated around the likes of the Daily Mail/Heffer in an ostensibly anti-cycling rant piece - but perhaps it has some merit.
Anyway with car tax discs being done away with no need for a whacking great tax disc on your bike, and the reg plates that I've seen bandied about would interfere with the saddle bag.
Compulsory helmet wearing is a good idea, and a compulsory cycle course could probably work. It would be amusing to line up beside Chris Hoy or Bradley Wiggins if it was put in place though !
it's interesting to see that he predicts "the chances of a Hung Parliament are up to their highest by some margin: 57%, surpassing the previous high of 53% two weeks ago.
... the Tories get the most votes (with 34% to Labour’s 31.3%) but not the most seats (with 291 to Labour’s 298). That would leave Labour 28 seats short of a majority, while the Lib Dems would have 31 MPs in their best seats forecast since April.
Shouldn't the Kippers be on 5? That's about where PP have their 'line'.
I tend to agree with you.
The Catholic Church failed in two ways. A small number of their priests were responsible for reprehensible acts and the Church reacted defensively rather than taking action. What is important is that the Church chose to look the other way and allowed the priests to continue.
In Rotherham, the authorities also chose to to look the other way (probably the race of many of the participants played a part), and the rapes continued.
No one is accusing the Church critics of being Catholic-ophobes.
I'm Catholic and have no qualms about the uproar and criticism - it's thoroughly deserved. Why then do some people try to defend Rotherham by saying, it's not just Muslims? It's not just Catholic priests either, but that's no defence.
Although UKIP seems to be more of a football-club type allegiance at times (hence a few people shouting UKIP! UKIP! UKIP! on here).
If someone is consistently against something to the extent of being unreasonable and saying everything of that type is the same, then they can be called a '-phobe' For instance, I'm fairly Labour-phobe at the moment, although that might change if they change leader and become nicer (yes, I'm aware of the irony).
In the same way, people can be -philes.
My point about the non kippers in McDonalds clacton wasn't that they were kippers that hadn't joined yet, it was they were SWP/HopeNotHate types that were doing what they did to give ukip a bad name.
I wouldn't have thought commenting on blogs was beyond them either
It just rams home the point that we need a full national investigation to get to the bottom of this. On this, there is a massive failure by central government, and the buck must stop at the top.
I have been told on here a couple of times that I ought to look at what the two people you mention have said and somehow use it as a guide to what I should think... As if!
The answer is still No:
Forecast Election Day Shares (with 95% Prediction Intervals)
Con: 34.0% (±7.1, i.e. 27% – 41%)
Lab: 31.3% (±5.2, i.e. 26% – 37%)
LD: 12.0% (±7.2, i.e. 5% – 19%)
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
Criticism is fine as long as the ideology in question is easy to change from? I really don't understand why that would make a difference. Using that logic any ideology that makes it almost impossible to extract yourself from using force would then be immune from criticism, which is obviously an absurd situation.
Not sure anyone is trying to defend people who are being unreasonable. The problem is agreeing what is reasonable and what isn't.
I wouldn't presume they are party members if I were you... The rest that follows in your post relies on that presumption too heavily
There were people in a packed Clacton McDonalds last Thursday speaking in loud voices so everyone could hear about the ISIS beheadings and what should be done to Muslims in this country
They were wearing ukip badges and rosettes, but they weren't ukip members
People shoot their mouths off on all sorts of blogs. Should we assume that people who express asinine views on left-wing blogs are necessarily members of the Labour Party?
The Times had a splurge of Kipperites a few months ago and they've mostly faded away again bar Boudicca who is everywhere. Her main issue is the EU.
I can't imagine that the average kipper would approve of men shaving their legs or lycra.
Are you going to stand as a candidate at the next GE ?
Forecast Election Day Shares (with 95% Prediction Intervals)
Con: 34.0% (±7.1, i.e. 27% – 41%)
Lab: 31.3% (±5.2, i.e. 26% – 37%)
LD: 12.0% (±7.2, i.e. 5% – 19%)
Implied point estimate shares for:
– Others (inc. UKIP): 22.7%
– UKIP: 14.8%
Forecast Election Day Seats (with approximate 95% Prediction Intervals)
Con: 291 (217 – 377)
Lab: 298 (216 – 367)
LD: 31 (25 – 37)
Why do you think that the model doesn't 'work' for UKIP?
The labour party is to blame. They firstly imported the Pakistani muslim community for votes and then made it above the law through political correctness.
Nothing is ever going to be 100%.
In the case of the Catholic church, the priests were in a privileged position. The suggestion from the Jay report is that because of some elements of PC, and straight forward politics,some Muslim men found themselves in a privileged position.
That's the real iissue.
It stands to reason. How can one commentator's (often rather suspect) account of current events compete with a lively debate from other interested parties, all of whom have an active interest and many of whom have directly applicable life experiences. Fantastic, and of an exceptional quality as PB's editorial content is, would we be as bigger fans if it weren't for the comments feature?
As a seperate point, 'disinfo' in the form of both online contributors and people behaving disgustingly in the public sphere to discredit particular movements is a very real phenomenon. Where it occurs and there is evidence it needs to be challenged and exposed. One of the uglier aspects of our modern politics.
It's not a million to one
Would you put on a seatbelt when a passenger in a car?
As a favour, even if the seats a long shot for UKIP, we'll all pile in with Shadsy so that you can put out 'odds shortening on the UKIP candidate' mailshots etc.
I wonder if you'll be able to access pb.com from Wormwood Scrubs?
And it happened in Thurrock yesterday
Tim Aker MEP (@Tim_Aker)
16/10/2014 19:20
Shocking to hear Labour activists in #wtss by-election speak of UKIP wanting gas chambers to voters today. Please condemn @ThurrockPolly?
No one on here has condemned either... Am I supposed to tick every non kipper off and assume they all agree?!?!?!
Maybe it's just me, (and I'm not a regular cyclist) but I'm not sure what's wrong about that.
As both an occasional horse rider and more frequent cyclist seeing other cyclists and horses on the pavements is annoying, though specific cycle paths don't always have to be used - there is a dual use cycle path near my house on a hill which if I were to head down it could end up in death/serious injury. Heading down the hill on the road, and up the hill on the cycle path is the sensible option.
Go on, stand. I'll vote for you - on the assumption you're one of the 2%
The downside is that it would have to be a Merseyside constituency.
I'd suck it up if I were you.
Guido reckons UKIP got taught a lesson in Thurrock overnight - they need to learn it.
Let it never be said that pb.com is short of pedantry ^_~ Guido's analysis is laughable.
Unfortunately my constituency, and all around are all taken... I would love to be the candidate for Hornchurch & Upminster or Dagenham & Rainham ... Maybe in 2020!
Would love to do a Clement Freud and pay my constituency costs with the proceeds of backing myself to win the seat,
It's not the law too. Nor do I travel at the speeds a bicycle can reach. Nor do I run the risk of going over the handlebars and smashing my head open.
But other than that, good point.
Interesting.
Whichever Spad/Spadette came up with this ruse got it very badly wrong.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2014/09/16/39362/new-law-states-drivers-must-give-bikes-3-feet-of-s/ come in, and a general pass "wide and slow/see cyclist, think horse/cross over the white line to pass the cyclist" message used - though perhaps the girl in the advert should wear a helmet ^_~
Is this evidence of Labour's crutch being kicked away, or is it random polling noise?
Not many seats now that are a probable or possible UKIP win with generous odds left.
Perhaps the last ones are Cambridgeshire NE and Walsall North.
I hope the bookies read "order-order" though, and ease UKIPs price because I'll smash it back into shape
The ward contested is the most Labour friendly in the constituency.. the Labour councillor died, and the vote percentages were barely changed (Lab +.1.4 UKIP -0.7?) with no LD candidate
As I said, I spoke to the UKIP candidate for the GE last week and he said he didn't expect UKIP to win last night, calling it their least friendly ward & if they did it would more or less mean the GE seat was in the bag
Expectations management?
I do not support UKIP and do not particularly share or like their view of the world, insofar as I can understand it. But ISIS and its ilk and those who support them and appease them are - if we allow them to get a toehold - a far greater threat to Western civilization than the Godfrey Blooms of this world.
When I am elected as Ukip MP for wherever I will campaign for cycling friendly policies
Are you going to stand as a candidate at the next GE ?
It's not a million to one
As a UKIP PPC can you confirm what UKIPs policy is to the 400000 French people who live in London and how the policy will be enforced?
I was surprised how diffident Redwood appeared. Otoh, we had OGH on here yesterday stating that the Conservatives were throwing everything at it.
Not sure.
Forget the statistics, the arguments, the pros and the cons and consider one moment; the moment you are flying off your bicycle at high speed towards a hard surface. In that instant would you be better off, or worse off, wearing a cycle helmet?
Labour of course surrendered before a shot was fired. Tactical, of course.
I'm not a UKIP PPC
And there aren't 400,000 French people in London
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26823489
I read the DT a lot before the Kippers took over - I now very rarely do as there's little in the reader comments to add that extra dimension. My heart sank when a bunch of them moved into The Times. I'm all for reading informed views or even one-eyed ones so long as there's a balance. The DT is an echo chamber now, more akin to a private Kipper Club. There's more variety at the Guardian, which I didn't think I'd ever believe was possible.
What important by elections were there in 1984?
Portsmouth South?
I'm quite sure the Conservatives will be throwing the kitchen sink at this one. No doubt they'll engage in some expectations management as well.
'No, you're doing it too ("all Labour people are like this"). It's what some Labour people do (sometimes including people writing a leaflet!). '
Well they give an excellent imitation of it.
£30k for doing so. Cash is cash.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-say-au-revoir-to-france-over-two-million-french-people-now-live-abroad-and-most-are-crossing-the-channel-and-heading-to-london-9788348.html
And yes they could be doing both - kitchen sink and expectation management.
I'm still of the opinion that the Tory price is the value, but I've been disappointed by the price movements so far.
I know that's what you meant, but it's how it reads.
And I agree about ISIS. But the problem is people differentiating between ISIS and Islam, and Islam and people from Islamic countries, and then using ISIS to beat up on Islam and foreigners in general.
By process of elimination, it must be the Tories.
Labour's share actually went up slightly in Heywood, so it's not them. It's clearly not the Kippers after their home run in Clacton. And Sunil has already given us a clue that it's not the Liberals. Therefore it must be the Tories that have seen a falling share in every single one of the 18 GB byelections in this parliament.
Realistically, it entirely depends on the situation. Typically if you have an 'over the handlebars' type accident from (say) a pothole then you will slide along the road surface rather than have a sudden stop. In such a scenario a helmet will prevent your head getting scratched, but without it you will still be able to walk away (and the scratches on the rest of your body are usually worse anyway). If you have any incident of any sort where you go under a motor vehicle in any way, a helmet is utterly useless.
The controversial one is the one that is actually pretty uncommon - you go over the handlebars and freakishly hit a lamppost, or a tree, or some other solid and fixed object head-first. If this is a solid object such as a wall then a helmet may help. If it is a pole type object (like a lamp-post) then it may make things much worse as the rounded non-abrasive nature of the helmet has the potential to convert direct impact forces (which actually the head is reasonably good at dealing with relatively speaking) into rotational torque (which the spine is much less good at dealing with)
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/UKIP-candidate-faces-selection-court-hears-sheep/story-23175314-detail/story.html
I assume that the posters you have an issue with are similar to the Guido posters -very anti-PC, very macho in style, lots of black/schoolboy humour, lots of anger. The way I see it, these were Tories -Guido used to be quite a Tory place, as did the DT I guess, but have been thoroughly disillusioned by Cameron and have gone UKIP.
I suppose what you get from their posts and the allowances you make for their aggressive posting style depends on how aligned you are with their political outlook. I quite like it when a DT columnist has written the sort of craven and illogical war-drum peice 'We must attack Russia or we'll all be eating Borscht soon' they tend to specialise in these days, and it gets comprehensively (and rudely) rubbished in the comments. Hence them not allowing comments when they know they've written flagrant rubbish on Syria or the like any more. I can see how others wouldn't though.
"The consulate defines London as the city plus "the south eastern quadrant of the UK including Kent, Oxfordshire and maybe Sussex too".
This is quite a generous description of the London area - it includes Oxford, a city in its own right about 60 miles away from London. Kent and Sussex meanwhile, stretch right down to the English Channel"
But however many there are, I don't want to make a fuss about that.
@Currystar has started an argument with me on here before accusing me of hypocrisy because I don't believe in repatriation, so its hard to think I'm on a winner getting involved
David Cameron begged to differ, distanced himself from Freud's remarks and ordered him to apologise.
News articles in the serious papers seem to include opinions rather than news more than they once did. Even the Guardian has fallen into this habit.
Newspapers need to be much more rigourous about separating opinion from news if they are to be respected.
Once a bike starts getting three feet of space outside it, while also being ridden three feet from kerb, it's occupying the same width of road as a car. Only it's moving more slowly and thus forces everything behind it to travel just as slowly.
TFL's traffic reports on this are interesting:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/travel-in-london-report-4.pdf
From the 1980/82 survey cycle to the final one in 2006/09, average weekday traffic speeds in Greater London fell by 18 per cent in the morning peak period, by 14 per cent in the interpeak period, and by 12 per cent in the evening peak period.... despite congestion charging, weekday morning peak speeds fell by 23 per cent over this three decade period.
So traffic speeds have been falling, and the fall was worst where there has been congestion charging. But what about traffic composition? Well unfortunately for the anti-car brigade car journeys have fallen, bus and bike journeys have risen. You'd think getting all those nasty cars off the road would solve the congestion problem for which falling traffic speeds are a proxy. Yet driving cars off the road actually slows traffic down. Which makes perfect sense if some of those car journeys result in road-blocking cyclists and even more buses.
"Mr Rosindell, a staunch Eurosceptic who has been Romford’s MP since 2001, said: “My views and Ukip’s views are not actually that far apart.
“I do not really have any objections with their policies - it’s their delivery.
“Standing across the country can only result in a Labour victory and Ed Miliband in No 10.”
He added: “While I agree with Ukip on many things, I’m more Ukip than Ukip in some areas.
“I’ve been arguing that we should not be part of the EU since long before Ukip even existed.”"
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/politics/havering_ukip_s_best_chance_of_general_election_success_in_london_1_3809806
I feel rather sorry for Kipper voters in many respects - it must be hard to be hated more than a common or garden Tory. Funny ole world. I hope @MrJones returns to posting myself - IIRC he was a Kipper of ex-Labour stock.
I think Kippers bear it as a badge of pride - if they're drawing the opprobrium of 'LibLabCon' - especially the BBC - then it proves, to them, that they are doing something correctly.
I didn't see last nights QT - did Labour really put both their feet into their mouths regarding Freud and, if so, what did Dimbleby do to reduce the damage?
The majority (in some cases, the vast majority) of politicians, journalists, media producers, academics, think-tank researchers and NGO staffers we have today went to Russell Group universities; Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol, Nottingham, Exeter, Warwick, York, LSE, UCL and Imperial.
It is no coincidence that those same professions are dominated by graduates of those universities. It is also hardly surprising that the politicians think the centre-ground is pro-EU and relaxed on immigration: the reports they write, and the conversations they hold (both socially and professionally) are largely to or with one each other.
To take my example, I went to the University of Bristol. In my peer group, the vast majority were on the soft-left. Including my friends. Only around 20-25% were on the centre-right (although I suspect a few more were economically liberal, but did not advertise it)
Upon graduation, almost everyone moved to London. Except me. My "cohort" split itself fairly evenly between law, banking, consultancy, and academia. A couple joined the armed forces and one or two into engineering. A few (not many to be fair) also went into media/think-tanks and parliamentary research.
Both socially, and professionally, we still all mix with one another. I notice that other graduates of other Russell Group universities have more or less done the same thing. As time as moved on, views have diverged economically (we do get a bit of debate on welfare reform, tax cuts etc.) but there's a striking degree of consensus on other issues.
Those are: that's it's insane to even contemplate leaving the EU, immigration is unquestionably a good thing, a concern about AGW, and a general internationalist spirit and cultural social liberalism. They almost all detest and mock UKIP. The fastest way to get yourself ostracised from future gatherings would be to argue against gay marriage.
So - given the way our society is dominated by these types, and concentrated in London - is it any surprise our leaders view it as the centre-ground?
Backing Spurs to win against City tomorrow.
However Spurs got the dockside hooker treatment when they played the big sides last year.
So also had a punt on there being over 5.5 goals at 9/1.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/man-city-v-tottenham/total-goals
This is odd to say the least, because in fact ISIS *are* within a very seperate and defined sphere of Islam, called Wahhabism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement . However, even Blair in his philosophical musings on the 'true' Islam and the 'distorted' versions of it, never really touched on Wahhabism. And I believe that the reason for this is that to do so would be to openly challenge the source of Wahhabism, and the source of the spread of Sharia, and the source of radicalisation of Mosques, and the source of terror attacks, and the source of Syrian 'rebels', and the source of mediaval mistreatment of women -namely our allies Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent Qatar. To do so would raise far too many questions about our own foreign (and indeed domestic) policy. The plain reality is, we're buddied up with the wrong Muslims. That's why no-one is 'differentiating' between ISIS and Muslims in the way you call for.
This isn't usually done in a crude or overtly bigoted way; it's just sneering and undertones. But it's very telling.
"The Foreign Ministry recorded 1.6 million expats at the end of last year. But that figure only includes people who had registered at French consulates abroad. “So the real figure is twice as high,” says Hélène Charveriat, the delegate-general of the Union of French Citizens Abroad."