Chinese are both smarter and harder working than Mexicans. An hour of their labour is worth much more.
Over time, people's views over which races are hard working and/or smart change.
If you go back a century (or less), the Irish were regarded as lazy wastrels. It's hard to make that case now.
Go and read what many British colonialists said about the Indians, and their unsuitability for many types of work. Heck, read what was said about the Chinese (the "orientals") by some of the merchants selling opium.
And if a Chinese person from the 11th century had made it to Europe, I'm sure he would have said we were racially inferior - given how much less advanced Europe and Britain were at that time compared to America.
People perform according to the their upbringing and their expectations and systems that allow them to reach their full potential.
David Herdson Indeed but still 6/7 times what the Greens polled in 2010. Under PR (or even AV) the Greens would be polling around the 10% the German, Swedish, French, Australian or New Zealand Greens regularly poll
The Greens only stood in about half the constituencies last time so their effective national equivalent share was about double what they achieved.
I agree that under PR they'd do better and might, with weak Labour and Lib Dem alternatives poll some way into the teens. However, it'd mostly be a protest vote (as much of their current score is). I don't think the core Green total is much different from what they get now.
David Herdson Indeed but still 6/7 times what the Greens polled in 2010. Under PR (or even AV) the Greens would be polling around the 10% the German, Swedish, French, Australian or New Zealand Greens regularly poll
The Greens only stood in about half the constituencies last time so their effective national equivalent share was about double what they achieved.
I agree that under PR they'd do better and might, with weak Labour and Lib Dem alternatives poll some way into the teens. However, it'd mostly be a protest vote (as much of their current score is). I don't think the core Green total is much different from what they get now.
In a PR system, I do have to say it feels like there's only enough space available for one of the Greens and the Lib Dems. The only way they could both exist would be for the Lib Dems to be an economically centre-right party, but the Cameroons already have that space.
Labour also has cause for concern, the LDs are already polling low, but that 7% Green poll also coincided with a Labour poll rating of just 32%
Is there a list of where the Greens ar going to have a candidate at GE2015? Also what number of candidates are they likely to have?
They ran 310 last time, if memory serves. With their membership nearly double what it was in 2010 I'd imagine they can afford and will go for a pretty much full slate.
They ran 334 if you include the Scottish and Northern Irish parties as well. That was their highest ever number of candidates, beating the 253 put forward in 1992.
Chinese are both smarter and harder working than Mexicans. An hour of their labour is worth much more.
Over time, people's views over which races are hard working and/or smart change.
If you go back a century (or less), the Irish were regarded as lazy wastrels. It's hard to make that case now.
Go and read what many British colonialists said about the Indians, and their unsuitability for many types of work. Heck, read what was said about the Chinese (the "orientals") by some of the merchants selling opium.
And if a Chinese person from the 11th century had made it to Europe, I'm sure he would have said we were racially inferior - given how much less advanced Europe and Britain were at that time compared to America.
People perform according to the their upbringing and their expectations and systems that allow them to reach their full potential.
But again, you need to look at the reasons for why those perceptions changed. The main explanation for that is that these countries went through cultural shifts. But cultural shifts happen slowly, and to me it seems like a fool's errand to not care about the culture of people coming here on the assumption that it'll all turn up roses in time. Especially when religious belief tends to be a great bulwark of cultural inertia in some cases.
David Herdson Indeed but still 6/7 times what the Greens polled in 2010. Under PR (or even AV) the Greens would be polling around the 10% the German, Swedish, French, Australian or New Zealand Greens regularly poll
The Greens only stood in about half the constituencies last time so their effective national equivalent share was about double what they achieved.
I agree that under PR they'd do better and might, with weak Labour and Lib Dem alternatives poll some way into the teens. However, it'd mostly be a protest vote (as much of their current score is). I don't think the core Green total is much different from what they get now.
Strictly speaking their effective share isn't as much as double, since the seats they ran in were presumably their best seats. Since those were the ones they had the requisite organisation and so on. Broadly speaking though you're right, of course.
Labour also has cause for concern, the LDs are already polling low, but that 7% Green poll also coincided with a Labour poll rating of just 32%
Is there a list of where the Greens ar going to have a candidate at GE2015? Also what number of candidates are they likely to have?
They ran 310 last time, if memory serves. With their membership nearly double what it was in 2010 I'd imagine they can afford and will go for a pretty much full slate.
They ran 334 if you include the Scottish and Northern Irish parties as well. That was their highest ever number of candidates, beating the 253 put forward in 1992.
Our immigration policy is a confused mix of attracting people with skills, letting in the relatives and spouses of people who come from dysfunctional societies because we feel sorry for them, and free migration from Europe.
That's rather unfair - there are plenty of legitimate students and spouses/children of British citizens who have to pay the extortionate visa fees to use the system. Most people aren't aware of just how expensive it is.
Students shouldn't contribute to net immigration, as they're supposed to go home after three years, so that's not really relevant as a group. Unless of course, a student visa is just being used as a method to get in, and then you apply to other groups.
In addition, a lot of spouses coming here are from the Indian subcontinent, especially Pakistan, via arranged marriages. Marriages with one eye on how extended clan relationships can most move people here.
1) Globalisation is causing a shift in wealth and power from the majority of people to an 'elite'.
2) This shift in power and wealth is especially pronounced in countries with high immigration as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.
3) The 'elite' is increasingly drawn from people with similar backgrounds - the PPEocrachy - and is increasingly insular and unwilling to leave its metropolitan comfort zone.
4) Inevitably the values and views of the 'elite' tend towards a narrower span. These values and views support things which are advantageous to the 'elite', whether that is materially (eg immigration) or psychologically (eg green energy). Outside values and views are dismissed.
5) The Western World generally and the UK especially have been living beyond their means for a generation. This process is increasing in the UK with a £100bn+ government deficit and £90bn+ balance of payments deficit.
6) The Western World and the UK especially have promised themselves future income via pensions, welfare state etc which are unaffordable.
7) The 'elite' know this and know that some or all of society will thus get less than promised. The 'elite' are determined that they will not lose out themselves.
8) Some other section of society will thus need to bear the brunt of broken promises and the consequent drop in living standards. If this section of society can be discredited then that can be used to 'justify' their betrayal.
9) To the 'elite' the greatest social crime is racism. The wwc are deemed to be 'racist' therefore their views and values can be ignored by the 'elite'. Austerity can then be imposed upon the wwc whilst the fatcats in the 'elite' of both private and public sectors grow ever richer.
10) Then it is discovered that the main victims of racism are in fact wwc. This cannot be admitted by the 'elite' as it damages their values on immigration, multicultalism etc. So the racist crime the wwc suffer from is deliberately ignored by both the government and 'anti-racist' groups.
11) With the 'elite' ignoring the wwc a political vacuum is created. This is filled by UKIP which increasingly becomes a wwc party.
12) This makes UKIP a threat to the 'elite'. While UKIP was a small party of reactionary Tories in the shires it was politically irrelevant but a wwc party threatens the 'elite'.
13) Thus the hatred which is turned on UKIP. The establishment Tories which loudly demanded UKIP supporters vote tactically when only the Conservative party would benefit from tactical voting lose their interest now that UKIP would gain from tactical voting.
What rcs1000 skips over is that the varying quality of migrants will make a huge difference long term. Immigration can either be used to skew our population to be more skilled professional families (with any money they bring with them), or we can carry on with the floodgates open and skew it to be more and more low income, low skilled people. Clearly the latter isn't going to help our competitiveness long term.
SNIP.
You could of course bring up Pakistani, Somali, Bengali and West Indian cultures but then the hounds of the anti-racists would be let loose.
Far better to do this than confront the real issues.
I would like to think when I specifically attribute differences in outcomes to the practicalities of parenting rather than any genetic differences that people wouldn't be so stupid, but you never know in this place.
Apart from the fact that science has completely debunked your position, you might like to think so, but reality is that there is no such thing as the blank slate. A large number of the left's social policies have failed since there imposition in the 60s precisely because they fail to take this into account.
"Science" has not completely debunked my position unless you only pick and choose the bits you want to believe. And I have never claimed such a thing as a blank slate. My argument was that upbringing is more important than genetics. You could be the child of rocket scientists: if you grew up as a street orphan, you're almost certainly not going to be very successful.
I can’t remember where it was, but I recall reading that when the child of parents with no obvious educational achievements did very well, one found that in the extended family there was someone else who’d done at least moderately well not far back..... great uncle, aunt or something like that.
Be interesting to see what traction that gets as an issue. UKIP supporters will definitely be against it, as will most Tories, but I suspect both parties would prefer not to address the subject.
1) Globalisation is causing a shift in wealth and power from the majority of people to an 'elite'.
2) This shift in power and wealth is especially pronounced in countries with high immigration as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.
3) The 'elite' is increasingly drawn from people with similar backgrounds - the PPEocrachy - and is increasingly insular and unwilling to leave its metropolitan comfort zone.
4) Inevitably the values and views of the 'elite' tend towards a narrower span. These values and views support things which are advantageous to the 'elite', whether that is materially (eg immigration) or psychologically (eg green energy). Outside values and views are dismissed.
5) The Western World generally and the UK especially have been living beyond their means for a generation. This process is increasing in the UK with a £100bn+ government deficit and £90bn+ balance of payments deficit.
6) The Western World and the UK especially have promised themselves future income via pensions, welfare state etc which are unaffordable.
7) The 'elite' know this and know that some or all of society will thus get less than promised. The 'elite' are determined that they will not lose out themselves.
8) Some other section of society will thus need to bear the brunt of broken promises and the consequent drop in living standards. If this section of society can be discredited then that can be used to 'justify' their betrayal.
9) To the 'elite' the greatest social crime is racism'. The wwc are deemed to be 'racist' therefore their views and values can be ignored by the 'elite'. Austerity can then be imposed upon the wwc whilst the fatcats in the 'elite' of both private and public sectors grow ever richer.
10) Then it is discovered that the main victims of racism are in fact wwc. This cannot be admitted by the 'elite' as it damages their values on immigration, multicultalism etc. So the racist crime the wwc suffer from is deliberately ignored by both the government and 'anti-racist' groups.
11) With the 'elite' ignoring the wwc a political vacuum is created. This is filled by UKIP which increasingly becomes a wwc party.
12) This makes UKIP a threat to the 'elite'. While UKIP was a small party of reactionary Tories in the shires it was politically irrelevant but a wwc party threatens the 'elite'.
13) Thus the hatred which is turned on UKIP. The establishment Tories which loudly demanded UKIP supporters vote tactically when only the Conservative party would benefit from tactical voting lose their interest now that UKIP would gain from tactical voting.
Can we have some facts (with links) to back up these assertions.
David Herdson Indeed but still 6/7 times what the Greens polled in 2010. Under PR (or even AV) the Greens would be polling around the 10% the German, Swedish, French, Australian or New Zealand Greens regularly poll
The Greens only stood in about half the constituencies last time so their effective national equivalent share was about double what they achieved.
I agree that under PR they'd do better and might, with weak Labour and Lib Dem alternatives poll some way into the teens. However, it'd mostly be a protest vote (as much of their current score is). I don't think the core Green total is much different from what they get now.
In a PR system, I do have to say it feels like there's only enough space available for one of the Greens and the Lib Dems. The only way they could both exist would be for the Lib Dems to be an economically centre-right party, but the Cameroons already have that space.
Surely you argument applies to FPTP, under STV the single transferable vote one could vote Green 1st, LD 2nd etc, (or UKIP 1st, Tory 2nd) with less chance of the vote being wasted.
Chinese are both smarter and harder working than Mexicans. An hour of their labour is worth much more.
Over time, people's views over which races are hard working and/or smart change.
If you go back a century (or less), the Irish were regarded as lazy wastrels. It's hard to make that case now.
Go and read what many British colonialists said about the Indians, and their unsuitability for many types of work. Heck, read what was said about the Chinese (the "orientals") by some of the merchants selling opium.
And if a Chinese person from the 11th century had made it to Europe, I'm sure he would have said we were racially inferior - given how much less advanced Europe and Britain were at that time compared to America.
People perform according to the their upbringing and their expectations and systems that allow them to reach their full potential.
I don't think Irish people do terribly well in Britain, large part of our underclass.
I have had to work extensively with teams that were outsourced to India, I found it was quicker to do as much myself as possible.
I am not convinced there was a significant gap between China and Europe until Europe pulled away in the 17th century. It is returning to its historic relationship now. The Chinese exclusion Act in the US was clearly motivated by a concern that the Chinese would come to dominate Americans in the US. China was perceived as a sleeping giant in the colonial period.
1) Globalisation is causing a shift in wealth and power from the majority of people to an 'elite'.
2) This shift in power and wealth is especially pronounced in countries with high immigration as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.
3) The 'elite' is increasingly drawn from people with similar backgrounds - the PPEocrachy - and is increasingly insular and unwilling to leave its metropolitan comfort zone.
4) Inevitably the values and views of the 'elite' tend towards a narrower span. These values and views support things which are advantageous to the 'elite', whether that is materially (eg immigration) or psychologically (eg green energy). Outside values and views are dismissed.
5) The Western World generally and the UK especially have been living beyond their means for a generation. This process is increasing in the UK with a £100bn+ government deficit and £90bn+ balance of payments deficit.
6) The Western World and the UK especially have promised themselves future income via pensions, welfare state etc which are unaffordable.
7) The 'elite' know this and know that some or all of society will thus get less than promised. The 'elite' are determined that they will not lose out themselves.
8) Some other section of society will thus need to bear the brunt of broken promises and the consequent drop in living standards. If this section of society can be discredited then that can be used to 'justify' their betrayal.
9) To the 'elite' the greatest social crime is racism. The wwc are deemed to be 'racist' therefore their views and values can be ignored by the 'elite'. Austerity can then be imposed upon the wwc whilst the fatcats in the 'elite' of both private and public sectors grow ever richer.
10) Then it is discovered that the main victims of racism are in fact wwc. This cannot be admitted by the 'elite' as it damages their values on immigration, multicultalism etc. So the racist crime the wwc suffer from is deliberately ignored by both the government and 'anti-racist' groups.
11) With the 'elite' ignoring the wwc a political vacuum is created. This is filled by UKIP which increasingly becomes a wwc party.
12) This makes UKIP a threat to the 'elite'. While UKIP was a small party of reactionary Tories in the shires it was politically irrelevant but a wwc party threatens the 'elite'.
13) Thus the hatred which is turned on UKIP. The establishment Tories which loudly demanded UKIP supporters vote tactically when only the Conservative party would benefit from tactical voting lose their interest now that UKIP would gain from tactical voting.
Typical chip-on-shoulder kipper attitude previously owned by Labour. Certainly kippers are usually reactionary in the worst unthinking way, in my personal experience.
1) Globalisation is causing a shift in wealth and power from the majority of people to an 'elite'.
2) This shift in power and wealth is especially pronounced in countries with high immigration as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.
3) The 'elite' is increasingly drawn from people with similar backgrounds - the PPEocrachy - and is increasingly insular and unwilling to leave its metropolitan comfort zone.
4) Inevitably the values and views of the 'elite' tend towards a narrower span. These values and views support things which are advantageous to the 'elite', whether that is materially (eg immigration) or psychologically (eg green energy). Outside values and views are dismissed.
5) The Western World generally and the UK especially have been living beyond their means for a generation.
6) The Western World and the UK especially have promised themselves future income via pensions, welfare state etc which are unaffordable.
7) The 'elite' know this and know that some or all of society will thus get less than promised. The 'elite' are determined that they will not lose out themselves.
8) Some other section of society will thus need to bear the brunt of broken promises and the consequent drop in living standards. If this section of society can be discredited then that can be used to 'justify' their betrayal.
9) To the 'elite' the greatest social crime is racism'. The wwc are deemed to be 'racist' therefore their views and values can be ignored by the 'elite'. Austerity can then be imposed upon the wwc whilst the fatcats in the 'elite' of both private and public sectors grow ever richer.
10) Then it is discovered that the main victims of racism are in fact wwc. This cannot be admitted by the 'elite' as it damages their values on immigration, multicultalism etc. So the racist crime the wwc suffer from is deliberately ignored by both the government and 'anti-racist' groups.
11) With the 'elite' ignoring the wwc a political vacuum is created. This is filled by UKIP which increasingly becomes a wwc party.
12) This makes UKIP a threat to the 'elite'. While UKIP was a small party of reactionary Tories in the shires it was politically irrelevant but a wwc party threatens the 'elite'.
13) Thus the hatred which is turned on UKIP. The establishment Tories which loudly demanded UKIP supporters vote tactically when only the Conservative party would benefit from tactical voting lose their interest now that UKIP would gain from tactical voting.
Can we have some facts (with links) to back up these assertions.
Proportional representation is obviously an overdue change. However, it has to be done in a manner that maintains the constituency link, and with small enough constituencies that party favourites can actually be voted out. STV with 3-member constituencies would do the trick.
STV is a long time Liberal / LibDem favourite. I believe that 3 or 5 member constituencies was the favourite. One consequence of this would be that most voters would have an MP who was elected for 'their' party, which should help voter engagement.
You do need people to be able to lose on a regular basis, to maintain the necessary electoral pressures in a democracy. Otherwise parties would not feel accountable to the voters. This is why I would prefer 3-members to 5-members.
As long as you can vote for individuals, then there aren't any safe seats under PR, as it breaks the link between candidate and party and almost by definition, a party will put up more than one candidate in a seat where they have decent support, even if there are only three members per constituency.
I personally prefer open lists to STV as it's simpler and it can include a candidate-neutral party box as well (for voters who want to vote for a party but without specifying a candidate), which STV can't.
Be interesting to see what traction that gets as an issue. UKIP supporters will definitely be against it, as will most Tories, but I suspect both parties would prefer not to address the subject.
Wonder how many anti-racist mobs will now descend on R&S. Shouting and screaming and threatening.
Perhaps they would be better off explaining what exact benefits this type of immigration has brought. And why a mega mosque is necessary.
There have always been elites, and probably always will be in some form or other. The problem that is emerging now is that the gap between elite and rest is widening, is becoming more difficult to bridge though "social transfer".
I think there are several factors at work that have created this situation
1) Abolition of national service including active service. This was somewhere where all classes mixed together and depended on each other, in some cases to keep them alive. I think this gave previous elites a wider knowledge of their fellow men.
2) Internationalism of the elite. With easy travel and communication, the elite now relate to other elites in other countries and have far more common with them than they do with their fellow men in their own country.
3) Equality of women. As a result elite young men meet elite young women at university and intermarry. There is far less intermarrying between classes, one of the historic means of "social transfer."
4) Mechanisation. Because of fossil fuels providing very cheap (in historic terms) energy, it is cheaper to mechanise than pay someone to do something. Therefore the elite have less need for the rest. This has obviously been going on for a long time.
5) Growth of the private car. This has sigificantly segregated the elite from day to day contact with the rest.
6) Abolition of grammar schools. Probably the most significant of the lot as it removed the biggest means of social mobility. Selection by ability has been replaced by selection by wealth (the wealth to pay private fees or move to catchment areas of top state schools). So elite thickos get a better education than clever non elite children, resulting in a decrease in intelligence and ability of the elite.
Things have now reached the stage where there are two parallel cultures, the elite with their values and the rest with their values. As the elite have up to now generally controlled the political parties they can project their values. However as they are very small numerically they are quite vulnerable if their "closed shop" is blown apart.
Thatcher started the process, UKIP will hopefully finish it. If they fail then the pressures will continue to increase and may burst in the same way as they did in France 200 years ago. (ugh!)
This has actually happened once before with the rise of the Labour Party. However since the death of Gaitskill the elite have sucessfully taken it over and deprived non elite members of any real influence. It is now the party of Harman and Miliband, not Frank Field and Dennis Skinner.
David Herdson Indeed but still 6/7 times what the Greens polled in 2010. Under PR (or even AV) the Greens would be polling around the 10% the German, Swedish, French, Australian or New Zealand Greens regularly poll
The Greens only stood in about half the constituencies last time so their effective national equivalent share was about double what they achieved.
I agree that under PR they'd do better and might, with weak Labour and Lib Dem alternatives poll some way into the teens. However, it'd mostly be a protest vote (as much of their current score is). I don't think the core Green total is much different from what they get now.
Strictly speaking their effective share isn't as much as double, since the seats they ran in were presumably their best seats. Since those were the ones they had the requisite organisation and so on. Broadly speaking though you're right, of course.
True, although in most seats even where they stood, the Greens did very little campaigning so I doubt their vote was much above what they'd have achieved elsewhere. Of their 310 candidates across England and Wales, they only saved their deposit in six of them, so it was a very sharp drop off given that they won one. For comparison, they saved 22 deposits in 2005.
2) Internationalism of the elite. With easy travel and communication, the elite now relate to other elites in other countries and have far more common with them than they do with their fellow men in their own country.
Who was it who proudly looked forward to the BBC covering Burundi more than Birmingham (presumably while still extorting the BBC poll tax from the citizens of Birmingham). Or was it a piece about how the denizens of London (of which he no doubt considered himself a member) were more interested in the events in Bujumbura than Birmingham?
Proportional representation is obviously an overdue change. However, it has to be done in a manner that maintains the constituency link, and with small enough constituencies that party favourites can actually be voted out. STV with 3-member constituencies would do the trick.
STV is a long time Liberal / LibDem favourite. I believe that 3 or 5 member constituencies was the favourite. One consequence of this would be that most voters would have an MP who was elected for 'their' party, which should help voter engagement.
You do need people to be able to lose on a regular basis, to maintain the necessary electoral pressures in a democracy. Otherwise parties would not feel accountable to the voters. This is why I would prefer 3-members to 5-members.
I think there might be more scope for marginal losses with 5-member constituencies rather than 3-member, because a smaller change in share of the vote would lead to a party losing one seat to go from two seats to one seat in a larger constituency, for example, compared with going from one seat to none in a smaller constituency.
I favour being flexible on the number of constituencies to suit the local geography. For example, Bristol currently has four seats, so this suggests a single 4-member STV constituency for the city. Plymouth, however, currently has only 2 and a bit MPs, so a 3-member STV constituency with some of the bordering rural areas looks like the obvious choice.
I suppose there is a bit more potential for gerrymandering if you don't insist on a uniform constituency size, since 3-member urban seats and 5-member rural seats would favour Labour and vice-versa, so maybe I'm wrong. Don't know really.
Another richard - there's a slight problem though re Ukip. That Nigel Farage isn't seen as wholly unsympathetic to the interests of the economic elite. A specifically WWC party led by an ex public schoolboy commodities trader?
Be interesting to see what traction that gets as an issue. UKIP supporters will definitely be against it, as will most Tories, but I suspect both parties would prefer not to address the subject.
Wonder how many anti-racist mobs will now descend on R&S. Shouting and screaming and threatening.
Perhaps they would be better off explaining what exact benefits this type of immigration has brought. And why a mega mosque is necessary.
Thinking some more about it, I don't it will get much traction at all because the media won't be interested, the main parties would rather not discuss it (too toxic) and it's not in the constituency anyway. Then again, I'd have thought BF will get 1-2% (?) which could come in handy if it's tight... Perhaps worth noting that Medway council (which approved the mosque) is Conservative-led.
Another richard - there's a slight problem though re Ukip. That Nigel Farage isn't seen as wholly unsympathetic to the interests of the economic elite. A specifically WWC party led by an ex public schoolboy commodities trader?
And Lenin was a member of the nobility. Background is not irrelevant but it's not nearly as important as policies and trustworthiness.
Typical chip-on-shoulder kipper attitude previously owned by Labour. Certainly kippers are usually reactionary in the worst unthinking way, in my personal experience.
Still bleating 'my party good, your party bad' I see perdix.
Tell me have you ever tried thinking for yourself ?
There are PBers of various backgrounds and various political views who do that and thus they have something to offer.
No UKIP will not agree to a pact with the Tories. A Coalition is a different matter, but will only happen if UKIP becomes a lot stronger than it is at present.
Can we have some facts (with links) to back up these assertions.
Perhaps you'd like to tell me which ones are incorrect ?
Increasing inequality perhaps ? The establishment hatred of UKIP ? That the UK is living beyond its means ? Or that the racist rape of thousands of children is being ignored by the authorities ?
Another richard - there's a slight problem though re Ukip. That Nigel Farage isn't seen as wholly unsympathetic to the interests of the economic elite. A specifically WWC party led by an ex public schoolboy commodities trader?
And Lenin was a member of the nobility. Background is not irrelevant but it's not nearly as important as policies and trustworthiness.
It is actually quite an insult to working class people to suggest that they are only happy to be led by someone who is working class. I don't think many people care about background, and working as a commodities trader where I live isn't a job that defined by class in the slightest by the way. Plenty of people who worked as commodities/futures traders at LIFFE are now cabbies, plumbers, etc... v few had uni educations, a lot were just confident, sharp, and good with mental arithmetic
If you live in a suburb of London, working in the city is just what a large percentage of people do, because its where most jobs are
Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, David Cameron & George Osborne are all public schoolboys
Two of them are generally well liked by working class people, two aren't
Ed Miliband isn't a public schoolboy.. he isn't well liked either
Funny to see Labour playing class war, and the Tories moaning about it on one hand.. and saying "what about him??? pick on him as well!!" on the other!!
Another richard - there's a slight problem though re Ukip. That Nigel Farage isn't seen as wholly unsympathetic to the interests of the economic elite. A specifically WWC party led by an ex public schoolboy commodities trader?
I doubt its a role Farage expected when he got involved in politics.
That doesn't mean it hasn't opened up for him or that he isn't taking it.
In any case throughout history there are no shortage of people from highly privileged backgrounds who become advocates of the people / workers / plebs.
Empathy towards people different to themselves (or at least the ability to fake such empathy among the self-serving) means more than actual background.
Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, David Cameron & George Osborne are all public schoolboys
Two of them are generally well liked by working class people, two aren't.
This is the critical point that Conservatives never seem to understand. Criticism of Cameron on the basis that he is privileged and out of touch with normal people isn't class warfare because the second bit is critical. The problem is that he's out of touch, and then his background and his social circles are the explanation for that. That doesn't mean anyone from his background and his social circles would have the same problem.
I think the classic example of Cameron showing his aloofness was when he couldn't understand why giving out internships as favours to his neighbours was something most people resent. The best jobs in London professions are the sort of thing that is expected if you grew up in the elite, because there's a standard train of public school to Oxbridge to an internship provided by Daddy's mate at a top consultancy firm and then a job offer from a big bank. People in that group think that it's all down to their own merit, and they don't see the problem with any of it. But everyone else can see how critical those internships are to stand out from the field in CV screenings, and thus for the rest of your career and lifetime earnings. But obviously it's a system where the children of the elite and guaranteed these internships, while everyone else has to compete over the small number that are actually open and competitive. Cameron is just bewildered by the complaints.
Another richard - there's a slight problem though re Ukip. That Nigel Farage isn't seen as wholly unsympathetic to the interests of the economic elite. A specifically WWC party led by an ex public schoolboy commodities trader?
I doubt its a role Farage expected when he got involved in politics.
That doesn't mean it hasn't opened up for him or that he isn't taking it.
In any case throughout history there are no shortage of people from highly privileged backgrounds who become advocates of the people / workers / plebs.
Empathy towards people different to themselves (or at least the ability to fake such empathy among the self-serving) means more than actual background.
Farage said almost exactly this on last weeks Sunday Politics
Andrew Neil put it to him that immigration didn't affect him personally, so why bang on about it...
Farage said that yes its true, he is unaffected by it because he has done alright, he could live quite blissfully unaware if he liked, but there are millions of people worse off who are very much affected by it and that's the point.. admitting we are not all in it together, a line that didn't work too well, and isn't heard very often anymore from Cameron and Osborne
Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, David Cameron & George Osborne are all public schoolboys
Two of them are generally well liked by working class people, two aren't.
This is the critical point that Conservatives never seem to understand. Criticism of Cameron on the basis that he is privileged and out of touch with normal people isn't class warfare because the second bit is critical. The problem is that he's out of touch, and then his background and his social circles are the explanation for that. That doesn't mean anyone from his background and his social circles would have the same problem.
I think the classic example of Cameron showing his aloofness was when he couldn't understand why giving out internships as favours to his neighbours was something most people resent. The best jobs in London professions are the sort of thing that is expected if you grew up in the elite, because there's a standard train of public school to Oxbridge to an internship provided by Daddy's mate at a top consultancy firm and then a job offer from a big bank. People in that group think that it's all down to their own merit, and they don't see the problem with any of it. But everyone else can see how critical those internships are to stand out from the field in CV screenings, and thus for the rest of your career and lifetime earnings. But obviously it's a system where the children of the elite and guaranteed these internships, while everyone else has to compete over the small number that are actually open and competitive. Cameron is just bewildered by the complaints.
Indeed.
The Conservatives have always succeeded when they've been the party of aspiration.
Instead they have regressed into being supporters of privilege.
Labour have a similar need to be seen as the party of 'fairness'. Instead they have become associated with being the party of 'single mothers and immigrants'.
The failure of the main establishment parties to be true to what should be their underlying creeds is a factor in their loss of support.
UKIP is highly fissile. A pact would guarantee a significant splinter group of those who don't like Cameron/the tories, and those who feel that the political establishment is only interested in their vote, not in them (because a pact is essentially a wholesale vote-trading deal). So lost UKIP votes would go three ways, not just red/blue.
Mikkil retweeted John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 3h3 hours ago Poll alert: We have a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror... http://ind.pn/1vrhzcI
Following yesterday's minor success I am emboldened to advise you that I have backed Workbench at 9/1 in the 2.35 at Cheltenham. Worth an ew punt if you pick this up in time.
Comments
(who should have money in the account following my tip in Clacton)
Demechelis goal mins at 4 look a cheap buy here in City vs Spurs at 1245
If you go back a century (or less), the Irish were regarded as lazy wastrels. It's hard to make that case now.
Go and read what many British colonialists said about the Indians, and their unsuitability for many types of work. Heck, read what was said about the Chinese (the "orientals") by some of the merchants selling opium.
And if a Chinese person from the 11th century had made it to Europe, I'm sure he would have said we were racially inferior - given how much less advanced Europe and Britain were at that time compared to America.
People perform according to the their upbringing and their expectations and systems that allow them to reach their full potential.
If tawny is about then the following tirbute to RJD may amuse her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdVDy8ioG_o
Bought the album but cannae get Amazon to install it on my Note..!..
I agree that under PR they'd do better and might, with weak Labour and Lib Dem alternatives poll some way into the teens. However, it'd mostly be a protest vote (as much of their current score is). I don't think the core Green total is much different from what they get now.
In addition, a lot of spouses coming here are from the Indian subcontinent, especially Pakistan, via arranged marriages. Marriages with one eye on how extended clan relationships can most move people here.
1) Globalisation is causing a shift in wealth and power from the majority of people to an 'elite'.
2) This shift in power and wealth is especially pronounced in countries with high immigration as it puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on property values.
3) The 'elite' is increasingly drawn from people with similar backgrounds - the PPEocrachy - and is increasingly insular and unwilling to leave its metropolitan comfort zone.
4) Inevitably the values and views of the 'elite' tend towards a narrower span. These values and views support things which are advantageous to the 'elite', whether that is materially (eg immigration) or psychologically (eg green energy). Outside values and views are dismissed.
5) The Western World generally and the UK especially have been living beyond their means for a generation. This process is increasing in the UK with a £100bn+ government deficit and £90bn+ balance of payments deficit.
6) The Western World and the UK especially have promised themselves future income via pensions, welfare state etc which are unaffordable.
7) The 'elite' know this and know that some or all of society will thus get less than promised. The 'elite' are determined that they will not lose out themselves.
8) Some other section of society will thus need to bear the brunt of broken promises and the consequent drop in living standards. If this section of society can be discredited then that can be used to 'justify' their betrayal.
9) To the 'elite' the greatest social crime is racism. The wwc are deemed to be 'racist' therefore their views and values can be ignored by the 'elite'. Austerity can then be imposed upon the wwc whilst the fatcats in the 'elite' of both private and public sectors grow ever richer.
10) Then it is discovered that the main victims of racism are in fact wwc. This cannot be admitted by the 'elite' as it damages their values on immigration, multicultalism etc. So the racist crime the wwc suffer from is deliberately ignored by both the government and 'anti-racist' groups.
11) With the 'elite' ignoring the wwc a political vacuum is created. This is filled by UKIP which increasingly becomes a wwc party.
12) This makes UKIP a threat to the 'elite'. While UKIP was a small party of reactionary Tories in the shires it was politically irrelevant but a wwc party threatens the 'elite'.
13) Thus the hatred which is turned on UKIP. The establishment Tories which loudly demanded UKIP supporters vote tactically when only the Conservative party would benefit from tactical voting lose their interest now that UKIP would gain from tactical voting.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/top-tories-to-hit-campaign-25513/
Be interesting to see what traction that gets as an issue. UKIP supporters will definitely be against it, as will most Tories, but I suspect both parties would prefer not to address the subject.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.hu/2014/10/scottish-post-referendum-special.html
The odds have moved a bit since.
Heads in to hiding for rest of day.
I have had to work extensively with teams that were outsourced to India, I found it was quicker to do as much myself as possible.
I am not convinced there was a significant gap between China and Europe until Europe pulled away in the 17th century. It is returning to its historic relationship now. The Chinese exclusion Act in the US was clearly motivated by a concern that the Chinese would come to dominate Americans in the US. China was perceived as a sleeping giant in the colonial period.
Murray covers elements in his book "Coming Apart'.
I personally prefer open lists to STV as it's simpler and it can include a candidate-neutral party box as well (for voters who want to vote for a party but without specifying a candidate), which STV can't.
Wonder how many anti-racist mobs will now descend on R&S. Shouting and screaming and threatening.
Perhaps they would be better off explaining what exact benefits this type of immigration has brought. And why a mega mosque is necessary.
There have always been elites, and probably always will be in some form or other. The problem that is emerging now is that the gap between elite and rest is widening, is becoming more difficult to bridge though "social transfer".
I think there are several factors at work that have created this situation
1) Abolition of national service including active service. This was somewhere where all classes mixed together and depended on each other, in some cases to keep them alive. I think this gave previous elites a wider knowledge of their fellow men.
2) Internationalism of the elite. With easy travel and communication, the elite now relate to other elites in other countries and have far more common with them than they do with their fellow men in their own country.
3) Equality of women. As a result elite young men meet elite young women at university and intermarry. There is far less intermarrying between classes, one of the historic means of "social transfer."
4) Mechanisation. Because of fossil fuels providing very cheap (in historic terms) energy, it is cheaper to mechanise than pay someone to do something. Therefore the elite have less need for the rest. This has obviously been going on for a long time.
5) Growth of the private car. This has sigificantly segregated the elite from day to day contact with the rest.
6) Abolition of grammar schools. Probably the most significant of the lot as it removed the biggest means of social mobility. Selection by ability has been replaced by selection by wealth (the wealth to pay private fees or move to catchment areas of top state schools). So elite thickos get a better education than clever non elite children, resulting in a decrease in intelligence and ability of the elite.
Things have now reached the stage where there are two parallel cultures, the elite with their values and the rest with their values. As the elite have up to now generally controlled the political parties they can project their values. However as they are very small numerically they are quite vulnerable if their "closed shop" is blown apart.
Thatcher started the process, UKIP will hopefully finish it. If they fail then the pressures will continue to increase and may burst in the same way as they did in France 200 years ago. (ugh!)
This has actually happened once before with the rise of the Labour Party. However since the death of Gaitskill the elite have sucessfully taken it over and deprived non elite members of any real influence. It is now the party of Harman and Miliband, not Frank Field and Dennis Skinner.
I favour being flexible on the number of constituencies to suit the local geography. For example, Bristol currently has four seats, so this suggests a single 4-member STV constituency for the city. Plymouth, however, currently has only 2 and a bit MPs, so a 3-member STV constituency with some of the bordering rural areas looks like the obvious choice.
I suppose there is a bit more potential for gerrymandering if you don't insist on a uniform constituency size, since 3-member urban seats and 5-member rural seats would favour Labour and vice-versa, so maybe I'm wrong. Don't know really.
"the Conservatives and Labour drive their combined support down by going negative on each other. Many voters conclude they're both right."
And they are.
Tell me have you ever tried thinking for yourself ?
There are PBers of various backgrounds and various political views who do that and thus they have something to offer.
Cheerleaders of any party don't.
No UKIP will not agree to a pact with the Tories. A Coalition is a different matter, but will only happen if UKIP becomes a lot stronger than it is at present.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4783/ukip-political-earthquake
Increasing inequality perhaps ? The establishment hatred of UKIP ? That the UK is living beyond its means ? Or that the racist rape of thousands of children is being ignored by the authorities ?
If you live in a suburb of London, working in the city is just what a large percentage of people do, because its where most jobs are
Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, David Cameron & George Osborne are all public schoolboys
Two of them are generally well liked by working class people, two aren't
Ed Miliband isn't a public schoolboy.. he isn't well liked either
Funny to see Labour playing class war, and the Tories moaning about it on one hand.. and saying "what about him??? pick on him as well!!" on the other!!
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/our-party-should-welcome-a-debate-with-farage-and-we-can-win-it/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LabourListLatestPosts+(LabourList)
That doesn't mean it hasn't opened up for him or that he isn't taking it.
In any case throughout history there are no shortage of people from highly privileged backgrounds who become advocates of the people / workers / plebs.
Empathy towards people different to themselves (or at least the ability to fake such empathy among the self-serving) means more than actual background.
I think the classic example of Cameron showing his aloofness was when he couldn't understand why giving out internships as favours to his neighbours was something most people resent. The best jobs in London professions are the sort of thing that is expected if you grew up in the elite, because there's a standard train of public school to Oxbridge to an internship provided by Daddy's mate at a top consultancy firm and then a job offer from a big bank. People in that group think that it's all down to their own merit, and they don't see the problem with any of it. But everyone else can see how critical those internships are to stand out from the field in CV screenings, and thus for the rest of your career and lifetime earnings. But obviously it's a system where the children of the elite and guaranteed these internships, while everyone else has to compete over the small number that are actually open and competitive. Cameron is just bewildered by the complaints.
Andrew Neil put it to him that immigration didn't affect him personally, so why bang on about it...
Farage said that yes its true, he is unaffected by it because he has done alright, he could live quite blissfully unaware if he liked, but there are millions of people worse off who are very much affected by it and that's the point.. admitting we are not all in it together, a line that didn't work too well, and isn't heard very often anymore from Cameron and Osborne
The Conservatives have always succeeded when they've been the party of aspiration.
Instead they have regressed into being supporters of privilege.
Labour have a similar need to be seen as the party of 'fairness'. Instead they have become associated with being the party of 'single mothers and immigrants'.
The failure of the main establishment parties to be true to what should be their underlying creeds is a factor in their loss of support.
Hayden Hill @KillSocialism 1h1 hour ago
Labour takes ex BNP members and Nazis into their party as representatives with open arms.
UKIP expressly bans them.
http://m.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/former-nazi-wins-a-labour-council-seat-1-3826439 …
Brilliant stuff.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul 3h3 hours ago
Poll alert: We have a ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared with the Sunday Mirror... http://ind.pn/1vrhzcI
Website, advertising. I just clicked on an advert for the Conservative Party, on the Spectator's Coffee House website.
The advert was distributed by "Content Click".
http://www.contentclick.co.uk
Following yesterday's minor success I am emboldened to advise you that I have backed Workbench at 9/1 in the 2.35 at Cheltenham. Worth an ew punt if you pick this up in time.
Aashish: I can't tell who's the manager from this Spurs performance. Villas Boas? Sherwood? Pochettino?
Ed can barely speak English.
From Yesterday
Football betting tip.
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
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/438566/#Comment_438566
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2FCyhBO_gs