Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on Saturday: Harriet Harman could become LAB

2

Comments

  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    Mr. Oz, why is Johnson unacceptable to Catholics?

    Must say I've not heard that before.

    Oooh that reminds me, and I've been meaning to mention, has anyone picked up on Miliband eating that 'bacon' butty apart from him looking 'weird'? Labour traditionally has a core Muslim vote and, to lesser extent, Jewish support. Eating bacon so publicly really wasn't bright.
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Mr. Oz, why is Johnson unacceptable to Catholics?

    Must say I've not heard that before.

    He was education minister in 2006 when Labour tried to bring in restrictions on entry to new Faith Schools when Catholics were pouring into the country from Poland.

    He was quickly moved to Health and Brown invited the Holy Father to a State Visit to make amends.

    It all happened so quickly that few outside the Catholic community noticed the biggest breakdown between the Catholic bishops and the State for over 100 years.
  • Options
    Miss Anne, the Jewish/not-Jewish line was indeed widely picked up on.

    The problem is that Miliband wants to have it both ways. He claimed he'd be Britain's first Jewish PM. But if he's going by ethnicity rather than religion, it was clearly Disraeli.

    If he's claiming to be a Jew in a religious sense, I'm not sure eating a bacon sarnie is necessarily kosher.

    Can't have it both ways.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087


    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    That's rather bold. I think without someone on the inside to allow you to run along the terraces, this would require you to cross a couple of bridges.....

    I think UKIP will poll 11-13%. That would be 3 to 4m votes.
  • Options
    Mr. Oz, cheers.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Ninoinoz said:


    I have noticed the general ignorance of religion has led to the near collapse of both Conservative and Labour parties. It seems to be a blind spot on this site as well.

    And yet one or other of these parties appears destined to provide the next PM. It's your looks rather than the quality of your political analysis that attracts me to you.
  • Options
    shadsyshadsy Posts: 289
    I dunno if @Swiss_Bob would count prominent political scientists as serious commentators, but Chris Hanretty at http://electionforecast.co.uk forecast an 11.2% UKIP vote and Stephen Fisher on http://electionsetc.com has them on 13.1%.
  • Options

    Swiss_Bob said:

    @audreyanne‌

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.


    No you won't.

    ComRes poll published here on PB: This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the General Election

    YouGov: YOUGOV (Just re record not fade away)

    Perhaps some of the 'serious commentators on here could give their opinion on whether they think UKIP's vote share will 'fade away' in the run up to GE15?.

    ComRes on UKIP does not have a good record. Remember the 38% share just two weeks before they got 27% in the Euros. Mind you most other pollsters overstated the purples at that election.

    Do you think UKIP's share will decline significantly?

    Taking the midpoint of polls that prompt for UKIP and those that don't, I expect them to poll around 20% nationally the way things are currently going.

  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,352

    Basically, Ed has a credibility problem. Can you imagine him in a tense meeting with Vladimir Putin? He'd run from the room, sobbing his eyes out.

    "There there, Ed, don't let that nasty man upset you. Of course they can have a Russian base in Portsmouth. And if you ask him nicely, I'm sure he'll put solar panels on the carriers."

    I'd rather have Harriet, she'd be tougher.

    Facing down your "enemies" is only is the first part. Kinnock may have had a bad press, but he faced down his Militant "colleagues" too.

    "We need a debate with Ukip," when in congenial company, followed by "Only if someone else does it."

  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move, that the European single currency was going to be a huge success that would leave us in the slipstream, and that Hillary Clinton was going to win the 2008 US Presidential election. These 'serious commentators' on politics are people that get selected through their CVs, their friendships and their business networks, or because they are famous for some unrelated reason, not on how well-performing their predictions are: just look at how Dick Morris continues to get well-paid gigs.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of otherwise intelligent people who just absorb their views from this class, rather than thinking critically about each step of their argument and whether it holds up. Ironically, the same people tend to eye-roll at working class people who absorb the views of their mates down the pub as being easily led.
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    edited November 2014

    Mr. Oz, why is Johnson unacceptable to Catholics?

    Must say I've not heard that before.

    Oooh that reminds me, and I've been meaning to mention, has anyone picked up on Miliband eating that 'bacon' butty apart from him looking 'weird'? Labour traditionally has a core Muslim vote and, to lesser extent, Jewish support. Eating bacon so publicly really wasn't bright.
    I don't think it's the bacon per se, but he was bigging up his Jewish credentials at the time so looked a complete opportunist.

    It was like if I didn't refrain from meat on Fridays.
  • Options
    Just over a week to go to the title decider. Like the rest of you, I've had a quick look at the old circuit diagram:
    http://www.formula1.com/races/in_detail/abu_dhabi_932/

    Williams might be alright. Tight circuit, but a few longer bits where top speed matters, and the Williams is the best at that. If Hamilton screws up the start or qualifying, the nightmare 1-3 finish could be possible.

    That said, the Mercedes is much better in the bends and I do expect him to win the title fairly easily. A crash or reliability failure would seem to be the only realistic means by which Hamilton will be denied.
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    Miss Anne, the Jewish/not-Jewish line was indeed widely picked up on.

    The problem is that Miliband wants to have it both ways. He claimed he'd be Britain's first Jewish PM. But if he's going by ethnicity rather than religion, it was clearly Disraeli.

    If he's claiming to be a Jew in a religious sense, I'm not sure eating a bacon sarnie is necessarily kosher.

    Can't have it both ways.

    Ah ok, thanks. I agree with you. He'd have done better to eat something else. Pork is haram for Muslims and trefah for Jews so why do that in front of them? It may not matter to most of us, but it's pretty crass to irritate your core voters like that.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Mr. Oz, why is Johnson unacceptable to Catholics?

    Must say I've not heard that before.

    Oooh that reminds me, and I've been meaning to mention, has anyone picked up on Miliband eating that 'bacon' butty apart from him looking 'weird'? Labour traditionally has a core Muslim vote and, to lesser extent, Jewish support. Eating bacon so publicly really wasn't bright.
    If Muslim voters have a problem with non-Muslims not following orthodox Islamic requirements, that's something wrong with them, not with Ed Miliband.
  • Options
    shadsy said:

    I dunno if @Swiss_Bob would count prominent political scientists as serious commentators, but Chris Hanretty at http://electionforecast.co.uk forecast an 11.2% UKIP vote and Stephen Fisher on http://electionsetc.com has them on 13.1%.

    The first link says 'fading slightly'.

    Second link I checked their archive for Oct 2013. Same percentage forecast vote for ukip, so no change. Not fading.
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2014
    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move
    Uh-oh, Socrates invokes Godwin's law. TIme to leave.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
  • Options
    Prescient? Written in February 2012:

    My problem is that you are not a leader. You are not articulating a vision or a destination, you’re not clearly identifying a course and no-one’s following you. You’re simply coming out with unintelligible guff in response to the latest headlines and seemingly hoping that we’ll think its impenetrability is down to our lack of understanding rather than your lack of coherence. The nonsense you say isn’t even well crafted and your “something for something” speech at conference was simply embarrassing.

    http://labourlist.org/2012/02/losing-faith/
  • Options
    Miss Anne, I don't think eating bacon is remotely out of order, the problem is banging on about how Jewish you are, and *then* doing it.
  • Options
    Ninoinoz said:

    Mr. Oz, why is Johnson unacceptable to Catholics?

    Must say I've not heard that before.

    He was education minister in 2006 when Labour tried to bring in restrictions on entry to new Faith Schools when Catholics were pouring into the country from Poland.

    He was quickly moved to Health and Brown invited the Holy Father to a State Visit to make amends.

    It all happened so quickly that few outside the Catholic community noticed the biggest breakdown between the Catholic bishops and the State for over 100 years.
    One that led to the Scottish Bishops abandoning Labour for the SNP and taking the Catholic vote there with them, hence the extraordinary collapse in the Labour vote in Scotland.

    We haven't forgotten the destruction of the catholic adoption agencies either.
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2014

    Miss Anne, I don't think eating bacon is remotely out of order, the problem is banging on about how Jewish you are, and *then* doing it.

    I know you don't but Muslims do. They provide a lot of Labour support, so it was politically inept.

    Let's not get sidetracked into a discussion about whether pork matters, nor about Islam. The point is that it really really really does matter to Muslims (and Jews).

    You wouldn't walk through Mea Shearim in a bikini. This is worse.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    By the way, not that I think anyone apart from kipper-bangers give a fig about the EU but it has been a good week for Europe with the economic data and the Rosetta mission.

    Do you think the UK would stop participating in the joint European space missions (on a multi-lateral basis) if they were to leave the EU?
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Miss Anne, I don't think eating bacon is remotely out of order, the problem is banging on about how Jewish you are, and *then* doing it.

    I don't think this is an issue. Miliband never claimed to be religiously Jewish, and there's a long culture of Jews with other religious views: Einstein and Marx spring to mind.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move
    Uh-oh, Socrates invokes Godwin's law. TIme to leave.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
    "if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism"

    I didn't do that, did I?
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Swiss_Bob said:

    shadsy said:

    I dunno if @Swiss_Bob would count prominent political scientists as serious commentators, but Chris Hanretty at http://electionforecast.co.uk forecast an 11.2% UKIP vote and Stephen Fisher on http://electionsetc.com has them on 13.1%.

    The first link says 'fading slightly'.

    Second link I checked their archive for Oct 2013. Same percentage forecast vote for ukip, so no change. Not fading.
    Ignoring Lord Ashcroft's polling of R&S then which showed how current UKIP voters will fade at the GE.

    We shall see! ;)
  • Options
    Mr. Beds, do the bishops really have that influence? Not contradicting you, genuinely curious (being neither Catholic nor Scottish this isn't really my area).

    Mr. Socrates, he claimed he'd be the first Jewish PM. If he referred to ethnicity, that's clearly nonsense [Disraeli]. If he referred to religion, bacon should be off the menu.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,340
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Roger said:

    AF

    "The SNP have adopted the idea of a Yes alliance:"

    Very smart piece of marketing by NS. Mind you she's been planning for this day since she was twelve or something so it's not surprising that she has a few well thought out ploys even if she doesn't seem very well rounded. A bit like Hague.

    Ploys perhaps.

    Where was her planning, input to Scotland's economic future after a 'Yes' vote.

    Any electorate with a brain would have dropped the whole SNP leadership after that fiasco, considering it is that which almost certainly lost them the 'Yes' vote.
    Cuckoo
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Miss Anne, I don't think eating bacon is remotely out of order, the problem is banging on about how Jewish you are, and *then* doing it.

    I know you don't but Muslims do. They provide a lot of Labour support, so it was politically inept.

    Let's not get sidetracked into a discussion about whether pork matters, nor about Islam. The point is that it really really really does matter to Muslims (and Jews).

    You wouldn't walk through Mea Shearim in a bikini. This is worse.
    Only a religious radical would expect people outside their religion to abide by their religious requirements. Surely, that's not the case for most Labour-voting Muslims?
  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Heading off to Cheltenham in a few minutes and haven't even looked at the runners. Anyone got any tips for my small stakes fun bets?
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move,
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move
    Uh-oh, Socrates invokes Godwin's law. TIme to leave.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
    "if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism"

    I didn't do that, did I?
    ???!
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    saddo said:

    Mr. Saddo, it's because they offer zero hours contracts. As do some Labour MPs, or so I've read.

    Zero hour contracts is the point. They've become an iconic touch stone point for Labour bubble types as a symbol of nasty capitalism at its worst.

    The reality is the majority of those working on them really like the contact and have higher levels of job satisfaction than those on full time contracts.

    If Ed bans them 100000 plus jobs will go and many companies will go out of business.

    It's just the politics of the stupid.

    There is certainly the potential for zero hour contracts to be abused, and a role for regulation. For instance, exclusive zero hour contracts are completely unbalanced in the favour of the employer and should be banned.

    That said, in many ways unpaid internships worry me more. Short "work experience" of 1-2 weeks is fine - I suppose it helps to build a CV but not much more. But unpaid internships entrench privilege and negatively impact on social mobility.

    (FWIW, my foundation employs two interns each year one to help with our education programme and the other to assist with the Winter Exhibition. But despite the fact we could easily get people to work for free, I've always insisted that we pay them the same (pro rata) as the full-time juniors that we hire.)
  • Options
    dr_spyn said:

    Oh dear, how sad, well never mind that Doncaster Council use zero hours contracts.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-11-15/government-already-acting-on-zero-hours-terms/

    Mr Hasbeen leading Labour over the electoral cliff.

    Zero hours contracts came in under the 1997-2010 Labour government, and exactly what did they do about it.

    At least this lot are banning exclusivity clauses.

    Its actually difficult to ban them entirely because a lot of people like having them. One chap who retired from our office stayed on on a zero hours contract. It was great for both sides, he only worked by mutual consent but was paid his old pay rate and didn't have the hassle of arranging self employment for occasional post retirement consultancy.

    The only thing that will stop dickensian *@*()& treating workers like dirt is the workers standing together and resisting. Unfortunately that isn't possible when the dickensian *@*()& can import some more workers from Hungary and have them subsidised by the UK state through tax credits and housing benefit from day 1. (something else made possible by Labour - eastern european mass immigration to low pay jobs would never have been possible without Browns Tax Credits)

  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    shadsy said:

    I dunno if @Swiss_Bob would count prominent political scientists as serious commentators, but Chris Hanretty at http://electionforecast.co.uk forecast an 11.2% UKIP vote and Stephen Fisher on http://electionsetc.com has them on 13.1%.

    They use historical polls and election results for those predictions. UKIP has never had the kind of success it is now experiencing before.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087

    Mr. Beds, do the bishops really have that influence? Not contradicting you, genuinely curious (being neither Catholic nor Scottish this isn't really my area).

    Mr. Socrates, he claimed he'd be the first Jewish PM. If he referred to ethnicity, that's clearly nonsense [Disraeli]. If he referred to religion, bacon should be off the menu.

    No, they don't. But, the SNP have put a lot of effort into courting Scottish Catholic voters.
  • Options
    Good morning, my fellow PB Fruitcakes!

    Unless tomorrow's YouGov comes to the rescue, this looks like a very bad ELBOW for UKIP this week...

    More tomorrow!
  • Options

    Mr. Beds, do the bishops really have that influence? Not contradicting you, genuinely curious (being neither Catholic nor Scottish this isn't really my area).

    Have a read of this:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/damian-thompson/2014/09/the-scottish-catholic-bishops-and-the-nationalists-a-scandal-is-coming-to-light/
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2014
    Socrates said:

    Miss Anne, I don't think eating bacon is remotely out of order, the problem is banging on about how Jewish you are, and *then* doing it.

    I know you don't but Muslims do. They provide a lot of Labour support, so it was politically inept.

    Let's not get sidetracked into a discussion about whether pork matters, nor about Islam. The point is that it really really really does matter to Muslims (and Jews).

    You wouldn't walk through Mea Shearim in a bikini. This is worse.
    Only a religious radical would expect people outside their religion to abide by their religious requirements. Surely, that's not the case for most Labour-voting Muslims?
    I agree with you in principle, but I just think it's not 'bright.' Why risk alienating them like that? Analogies don't work too well because pork is a big issue for Muslims (more than alcohol but there's a long and frankly boring reason for that to do with the Night journey). It's sort-of like being a ManUtd supporter but walking through N7 in a Spurs shirt. Why do it?

    I definitely agree that no Muslim would expect Miliband to pretend to be something he isn't. However, for a comparison, when a leader goes into a mosque, gurdwara, temple or synagogue: you just expect them to show a bit of respect by covering heads / removing shoes as appropriate. In the case of eating pork in front of the cameras it's just unnecessary. He could have chosen something else for his photo op, which he also might have got his teeth into rather more successfully.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Ninoinoz said:

    EdM is fortunate to have a horror like Harman as his default successor. She's the stuff of fairytale nightmare.

    Had five MPs voted differently in 2007, Alan Johnson would be Miliband's deputy.
    Which shows how unbelievably stupid they are.

    Johnson was (or is) completely unacceptable to the Catholic voters of NW England and the West of Scotland. Indeed, the loss of the Catholic vote in Scotland is what is driving the collapse of Labour in Scotland.

    I have noticed the general ignorance of religion has led to the near collapse of both Conservative and Labour parties. It seems to be a blind spot on this site as well.
    It's not a blind spot - there are at least several commentators on this site who are serious Anglicans, some who (I believe) have crossed the Tiber, while I assume you are a born & bred Roman Catholic.

    It's just an awareness that we don't live in a theocracy.

    Mark 12:17
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Ninoinoz said:

    Mr. Oz, why is Johnson unacceptable to Catholics?

    Must say I've not heard that before.

    He was education minister in 2006 when Labour tried to bring in restrictions on entry to new Faith Schools when Catholics were pouring into the country from Poland.

    He was quickly moved to Health and Brown invited the Holy Father to a State Visit to make amends.

    It all happened so quickly that few outside the Catholic community noticed the biggest breakdown between the Catholic bishops and the State for over 100 years.
    One that led to the Scottish Bishops abandoning Labour for the SNP and taking the Catholic vote there with them, hence the extraordinary collapse in the Labour vote in Scotland.

    We haven't forgotten the destruction of the catholic adoption agencies either.
    Yes. The extraordinary collapse in the Labour vote in Scotland in the 2010 GE. You couldnt make this rubbish up. The Catholic adoption agencies werent destroyed. They mostly decided that issues of private sexuality trumped child welfare.

  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,291

    dr_spyn said:

    Oh dear, how sad, well never mind that Doncaster Council use zero hours contracts.

    http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-11-15/government-already-acting-on-zero-hours-terms/

    Mr Hasbeen leading Labour over the electoral cliff.

    Zero hours contracts came in under the 1997-2010 Labour government, and exactly what did they do about it.

    At least this lot are banning exclusivity clauses.

    Its actually difficult to ban them entirely because a lot of people like having them. One chap who retired from our office stayed on on a zero hours contract. It was great for both sides, he only worked by mutual consent but was paid his old pay rate and didn't have the hassle of arranging self employment for occasional post retirement consultancy.

    The only thing that will stop dickensian *@*()& treating workers like dirt is the workers standing together and resisting. Unfortunately that isn't possible when the dickensian *@*()& can import some more workers from Hungary and have them subsidised by the UK state through tax credits and housing benefit from day 1. (something else made possible by Labour - eastern european mass immigration to low pay jobs would never have been possible without Browns Tax Credits)

    Silence from Ed Balls, and the other Lab Co-Op MPs about Co-Op brand hiring on zero hours, with wages topped up by tax credits.

    Labour have found a wonderful way to distort the Labour Market, and Cameron has still to axe it.
  • Options

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Indigo said:

    Labour need to regain that stardust if they are to succeed.

    But she doesn't have any charisma. Blair might have had that "enviable intellectual suppleness and moral maneuverability" but he had star quality, he could enchant an audience, not quite in Clinton's league, but very few are. When HH speaks people start to considering going to look for a vending machine, its that hectoring "Hilda Ogden" voice that repels men at 100yds.
    She is not to everyones taste, I agree. But she does not have to be.



    From 2006 when she was running for deputy. Much of this came to pass.

    Perhaps the bottom line is that I would be happy to see her as our second female PM. She would be far better than Ed.
    Her brand of feminism isn't popular among voters as a whole.
    #shirtstorm shows that feminism is still very pertinent, and active.

    My own position is that was a shirt NSFW; but if worn with a degree of irony then acceptable wear.
    Very popular with a significant minority of the voters. Unpopular with most. Rather like CND in the 1980s. That would be the problem. Harman would only appeal to very left wing voters.

    Then there is Christmas itself, which for many families will be the acid test of whether George Osborne really has raised real wages and living standards, or whether Labour is right about the cost of living crisis.
    The spoiler is UKIP, but they will fade next year when the heat's turned up and people get serious about real politics.
    We live in hope. As do you with your wishful thinking. No serious commentator thinks UKIP's vote will fade in the run up to the GE.
    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.
    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    Serious commentators are usually very good at telling you what happened last time.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Miss Anne, I don't think eating bacon is remotely out of order, the problem is banging on about how Jewish you are, and *then* doing it.

    I know you don't but Muslims do. They provide a lot of Labour support, so it was politically inept.

    Let's not get sidetracked into a discussion about whether pork matters, nor about Islam. The point is that it really really really does matter to Muslims (and Jews).

    You wouldn't walk through Mea Shearim in a bikini. This is worse.
    An Englishman can't eat a bacon sandwich in London?
  • Options
    Mr. Beds, interesting stuff.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move,
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move
    Uh-oh, Socrates invokes Godwin's law. TIme to leave.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
    "if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism"

    I didn't do that, did I?
    ???!
    Those quotes prove him right and you wrong
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Swiss_Bob said:

    @audreyanne‌

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.


    No you won't.

    ComRes poll published here on PB: This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the General Election

    YouGov: YOUGOV (Just re record not fade away)

    Perhaps some of the 'serious commentators on here could give their opinion on whether they think UKIP's vote share will 'fade away' in the run up to GE15?.

    I would say it is very likely.

    My personal prediction has moved up from 8-10% 18 months ago to around 10-12% now. There will be some squeezing, some loss of attention, some dilution from higher turnout, and some people shifting away from protesting to making a decision based on who they want to form the next government.

    This will be a very good result for them: the next step will be to figure out where to target properly.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    OT

    Had quarterly lunch with the Bank of England yesterday - mainly about their quarterly report - (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/inflationreport/2014/ir14nov.pdf) - this has some good charts and background info.

    Most of the discussion was on four areas:

    Lower tax income due to new - post2010- employment patterns
    The potential weakness of the German economy
    The potential inability of the ECB to bail out any more EZ problems without fresh German support which may not be forthcoming
    The economic implications of the UKGE2015
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    shadsy said:

    Although HH is my MP and it would be interesting, I hope this doesn't happen. There will be all sorts of betting rules related hassle about whether she'd count as the "permanent" leader, or just a temporary one until a conference (which would mean we wouldn't pay out until an actual leadership election happens).

    From your point of view, if Ed retired to the drawing room with a revolver and HH became leader until the election, would she be "permanent" for bet settlement.

    If Ed was replaced by anyone else, who then had to step down after an unsuccessful GE they would be less permanent than a temporary HH. If HH became PM she would presumably hold the leadership for at least one term.
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move,
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move
    Uh-oh, Socrates invokes Godwin's law. TIme to leave.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
    "if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism"

    I didn't do that, did I?
    ???!
    Those quotes prove him right and you wrong
    Of course they do Isam, but then you're the person who called TSE 'useless' on punting tips.

    I've tended to arrive at the opinion that whatever you post, the opposite is likely to be true. It would be lovely to find over the next six months that I'll be proved wrong. You have much to offer, but perhaps need to think a little more, and post a little less.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Miss Anne, I don't think eating bacon is remotely out of order, the problem is banging on about how Jewish you are, and *then* doing it.

    I know you don't but Muslims do. They provide a lot of Labour support, so it was politically inept.

    Let's not get sidetracked into a discussion about whether pork matters, nor about Islam. The point is that it really really really does matter to Muslims (and Jews).

    You wouldn't walk through Mea Shearim in a bikini. This is worse.
    Only a religious radical would expect people outside their religion to abide by their religious requirements. Surely, that's not the case for most Labour-voting Muslims?
    I agree with you in principle, but I just think it's not 'bright.' Why risk alienating them like that? Analogies don't work too well because pork is a big issue for Muslims (more than alcohol but there's a long and frankly boring reason for that to do with the Night journey). It's sort-of like being a ManUtd supporter but walking through N7 in a Spurs shirt. Why do it?

    I definitely agree that no Muslim would expect Miliband to pretend to be something he isn't. However, for a comparison, when a leader goes into a mosque, gurdwara, temple or synagogue: you just expect them to show a bit of respect by covering heads / removing shoes as appropriate. In the case of eating pork in front of the cameras it's just unnecessary. He could have chosen something else for his photo op, which he also might have got his teeth into rather more successfully.
    In all your comparisons, it's about doing an activity in a particular place associated with people upset by that activity. I could understand the criticism if he had eaten a bacon sandwich at Muslim festival, but it's unreasonable for any major Labour politician to never eat pork in public.

    Would you care to expand on the long and frankly boring reason? I would actually be interested to hear it.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    lection.

    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move,
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    arliament.

    sult of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move
    Uh-oh, Socrates invokes Godwin's law. TIme to leave.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
    "if ?
    ???!
    Those quotes prove him right and you wrong
    Of course they do Isam, but then you're the person who called TSE 'useless' on punting tips.

    I've tended to arrive at the opinion that whatever you post, the opposite is likely to be true. It would be lovely to find over the next six months that I'll be proved wrong. You have much to offer, but perhaps need to think a little more, and post a little less.
    He is useless on punting tips

    And you are useless at political analysis as you have shown with this misreading of Socrates posts leading ton a false accusation

    Obviously you are trolling as our main row was over my prediction that ukip would walk the Rochester By election and your vehemently arguing that the primaries, kelly tolhurst etc would mean it would be a lot closer, and 3/1 was value bet..

    What price are the conservatives now? By anybodys measure I was right and your were very wrong... Bookies have already paid ukip as the winners . You might win some of your money back if you follow my other politics, betting tips
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    '...Labour's Michael Howard?'

    We can only hope so
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Miss Anne, I don't think eating bacon is remotely out of order, the problem is banging on about how Jewish you are, and *then* doing it.

    I know you don't but Muslims do. They provide a lot of Labour support, so it was politically inept.

    Let's not get sidetracked into a discussion about whether pork matters, nor about Islam. The point is that it really really really does matter to Muslims (and Jews).

    You wouldn't walk through Mea Shearim in a bikini. This is worse.
    Only a religious radical would expect people outside their religion to abide by their religious requirements. Surely, that's not the case for most Labour-voting Muslims?
    I agree with you in principle, but I just think it's not 'bright.' Why risk alienating them like that? Analogies don't work too well because pork is a big issue for Muslims (more than alcohol but there's a long and frankly boring reason for that to do with the Night journey). It's sort-of like being a ManUtd supporter but walking through N7 in a Spurs shirt. Why do it?

    I definitely agree that no Muslim would expect Miliband to pretend to be something he isn't. However, for a comparison, when a leader goes into a mosque, gurdwara, temple or synagogue: you just expect them to show a bit of respect by covering heads / removing shoes as appropriate. In the case of eating pork in front of the cameras it's just unnecessary. He could have chosen something else for his photo op, which he also might have got his teeth into rather more successfully.

    Would you care to expand on the long and frankly boring reason? I would actually be interested to hear it.
    Very quickly because I must get some work done on a big speech next week, but in the story of the night journey the prophet goes to heaven and two drinks are set before him: alcohol and milk. He chose the milk. If he had chosen the alcohol he 'would have been led astray.' Alcohol is definitely forbidden and haram for Muslims, but pork is particularly viewed as unclean. If we switched the story it's inconceivable that pork would have been set before him in heaven. I actually know quite a few Muslims who do drink alcohol (they're not supposed to). The real sin is having too much and losing control. I don't know a single Muslim who eats pork. I also know some lapsed Muslims who still wouldn't eat pork. It's hair-splitting perhaps but it's a real no-no.

    I agree with you by the way about eating bacon in public, it's just that he deliberately made it a big photo op in front of all the cameras. That was just unwise.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move,
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.

    Isn't one of Nate Silver's insights that the opinions of 'serious commentators' are not useful for predicting the result of an election.
    The 'serious commentators' also believed that appeasing Adolf Hitler was the right move
    Uh-oh, Socrates invokes Godwin's law. TIme to leave.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
    "if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism"

    I didn't do that, did I?
    ???!
    Firstly, I did not make a comparison, but saying what people actually did. Second, I was describing the appeasers in the UK, not Hitler or the Nazis.
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Frying pan to fire candidate.

    This artcle sums her up pretty well and a rather damning indictment of her time as an MP here and the other "feminists" . The feminist T shirt was just the latest in a long line of such viewpoints but at least we know where to find her though?


    http://conservativewoman.co.uk/kathy-gyngell-meet-harriet-co-name-guilty-women-destroying-labours-working-class-base/


  • Options
    Charles said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    @audreyanne‌

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.


    No you won't.

    ComRes poll published here on PB: This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the General Election

    YouGov: YOUGOV (Just re record not fade away)

    Perhaps some of the 'serious commentators on here could give their opinion on whether they think UKIP's vote share will 'fade away' in the run up to GE15?.

    I would say it is very likely.

    My personal prediction has moved up from 8-10% 18 months ago to around 10-12% now. There will be some squeezing, some loss of attention, some dilution from higher turnout, and some people shifting away from protesting to making a decision based on who they want to form the next government.

    This will be a very good result for them: the next step will be to figure out where to target properly.
    The problem with UKIP 'fading away' is that those votes have to go somewhere.

    Who to?
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Mr. Beds, do the bishops really have that influence? Not contradicting you, genuinely curious (being neither Catholic nor Scottish this isn't really my area).

    The failure of the Scottish Bishops to give guidance over independence enabled local parish priests and activists to give full rein to campaigning for YES. One word from the bishops would have put a stop to that.

    The collapse in membership of the Scottish Labour Party means that organisations like the RCC have increased influence, but it is distributed.

    Schools are a third rail issue in both England and Scotland and Johnston put his foot on it.
  • Options
    FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Good morning, my fellow PB Fruitcakes!

    Unless tomorrow's YouGov comes to the rescue, this looks like a very bad ELBOW for UKIP this week...

    More tomorrow!

    I quite like fruitcake - tends to last well when kept under a damp cloth or in a tin or covered with marzipan and icing - otherwise can go a bit mouldy or inedible if kept too long. Is eating fruitcake akin to the Tories eating babies? .
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Swiss_Bob said:

    Charles said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    @audreyanne‌

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.


    No you won't.

    ComRes poll published here on PB: This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the General Election

    YouGov: YOUGOV (Just re record not fade away)

    Perhaps some of the 'serious commentators on here could give their opinion on whether they think UKIP's vote share will 'fade away' in the run up to GE15?.

    I would say it is very likely.

    My personal prediction has moved up from 8-10% 18 months ago to around 10-12% now. There will be some squeezing, some loss of attention, some dilution from higher turnout, and some people shifting away from protesting to making a decision based on who they want to form the next government.

    This will be a very good result for them: the next step will be to figure out where to target properly.
    The problem with UKIP 'fading away' is that those votes have to go somewhere.

    Who to?
    You were talking about percentage shares, not absolute numbers.

    I suspect that any leakage will be to the Tories (protest vs government) and to DNV
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Beds, do the bishops really have that influence? Not contradicting you, genuinely curious (being neither Catholic nor Scottish this isn't really my area).

    Mr. Socrates, he claimed he'd be the first Jewish PM. If he referred to ethnicity, that's clearly nonsense [Disraeli]. If he referred to religion, bacon should be off the menu.

    No, they don't. But, the SNP have put a lot of effort into courting Scottish Catholic voters.
    And, relevantly, Scottish Labour has put in none. For decades.
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2014
    Isam I don't know if that's a deliberate attempt to wind me up, or just an error on your part, but I haven't once deviated from my view that UKIP will win Rochester and Strood next week.

    As you know, I have a bet on with you about the General Election which is where the real action will happen.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    Charles said:

    Swiss_Bob said:

    @audreyanne‌

    On the contrary 'Bob.' Every serious commentator knows it will. It's the reality of British politics. A significant number of people will come home to roost for the three main parties. It's tribal, cultural, historic. For UKIP to breakthrough properly would take a long time or something seismic like a particular type of terrorist attack.

    UKIP will be lucky to poll 15%, which in itself would be a massive achievement. If they get more than 6 MPs I will run naked around the Houses of Parliament.


    No you won't.

    ComRes poll published here on PB: This ComRes poll suggests UKIP will not be fading at the General Election

    YouGov: YOUGOV (Just re record not fade away)

    Perhaps some of the 'serious commentators on here could give their opinion on whether they think UKIP's vote share will 'fade away' in the run up to GE15?.

    I would say it is very likely.

    My personal prediction has moved up from 8-10% 18 months ago to around 10-12% now. There will be some squeezing, some loss of attention, some dilution from higher turnout, and some people shifting away from protesting to making a decision based on who they want to form the next government.

    This will be a very good result for them: the next step will be to figure out where to target properly.
    The problem with UKIP 'fading away' is that those votes have to go somewhere.

    Who to?
    You were talking about percentage shares, not absolute numbers.

    I suspect that any leakage will be to the Tories (protest vs government) and to DNV
    Fair enough if UKIP lose to DNV.

    I can't see Miliband improving his position and Cameron keeps shooting himself in the foot.

    The Greens while being touted as the new insurgents are not and the LibDems are on life support.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Ninoinoz said:

    Mr. Beds, do the bishops really have that influence? Not contradicting you, genuinely curious (being neither Catholic nor Scottish this isn't really my area).

    The failure of the Scottish Bishops to give guidance over independence enabled local parish priests and activists to give full rein to campaigning for YES. One word from the bishops would have put a stop to that.

    The collapse in membership of the Scottish Labour Party means that organisations like the RCC have increased influence, but it is distributed.

    Schools are a third rail issue in both England and Scotland and Johnston put his foot on it.
    I think that catholic voters are much more liberal than their bishops. The Catholic laity often regard contraception, abortion and homosexuality little differently to their fellow countrymen.

    Schools are different, but the desire for faith schools is very often because of perceived academic standards and discipline rather than any desire for religious instruction.

    Pope Francis seems to be trying to drag some of his dinosaur bishops into the modern age, though a liberal pope is only a relative concept!
  • Options
    FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Charles said:

    This thread is hysterical. I can only think of one leader who would be far worse for Labour than Ed - Hattie. Especially with the VIP child abuse scandal growing ever larger (Civil Liberties Pie anyone?)

    Talk about Lynton Crosby Heaven.

    Did I mention before that my Mum once punched Hattie?
    On which of her many faces?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Isam I don't know if that's a deliberate attempt to wind me up, or just an error on your part, but I haven't once deviated from my view that UKIP will win Rochester and Strood next week.

    As you know, I have a bet on with you about the General Election which is where the real action will happen.

    Yes but you said the value bet was the tories at 3/1 and listed five 'facts' which 'proved' it

    When I disagreed, you started banging on about tub thumping kippers who don't know what they're talking about etc

    But the tories were not the value bet at 3/1, so you were wrong and I was right
  • Options
    audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    Charles said:

    This thread is hysterical. I can only think of one leader who would be far worse for Labour than Ed - Hattie. Especially with the VIP child abuse scandal growing ever larger (Civil Liberties Pie anyone?)

    Talk about Lynton Crosby Heaven.

    Did I mention before that my Mum once punched Hattie?
    On which of her many faces?
    Brilliant!! :D
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Moses_ said:

    Frying pan to fire candidate.

    This artcle sums her up pretty well and a rather damning indictment of her time as an MP here and the other "feminists" . The feminist T shirt was just the latest in a long line of such viewpoints but at least we know where to find her though?


    http://conservativewoman.co.uk/kathy-gyngell-meet-harriet-co-name-guilty-women-destroying-labours-working-class-base/


    I am now an Ed person but were he to go, Harriet is a very capable replacement, more than temporary. She is a known entity. All the Harperson jokes will bring in many feminists from the Greens.
  • Options
    surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited November 2014
    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    Does that mean 12% of Jews support UKIP or 12% of kippers are Jews ?
  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
  • Options
    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    Does that mean 12% of Jews support UKIP or 12% of kippers are Jews ?
  • Options
    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    Does that mean 12% of Jews support UKIP or 12% of kippers are Jews ?
    They'd be kippahs ...
  • Options
    isam said:

    Isam I don't know if that's a deliberate attempt to wind me up, or just an error on your part, but I haven't once deviated from my view that UKIP will win Rochester and Strood next week.

    As you know, I have a bet on with you about the General Election which is where the real action will happen.

    Yes but you said the value bet was the tories at 3/1 and listed five 'facts' which 'proved' it

    When I disagreed, you started banging on about tub thumping kippers who don't know what they're talking about etc

    But the tories were not the value bet at 3/1, so you were wrong and I was right
    I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, maybe even if I'm right ;-).
    I thought a 'value' bet was not something that you necessarily thought would happen but one that you thought was priced better than the odds you considered correct.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    Any figures on Muslims?

    I am encouraged that so many of our ethnic minorities are integrating into British life, even though I disapprove of their political choice.

    I do wonder whether some support comes from UKIP being seen as anti-muslim, something that plays well with some other religious groups.
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Ninoinoz said:

    Mr. Beds, do the bishops really have that influence? Not contradicting you, genuinely curious (being neither Catholic nor Scottish this isn't really my area).

    The failure of the Scottish Bishops to give guidance over independence enabled local parish priests and activists to give full rein to campaigning for YES. One word from the bishops would have put a stop to that.

    The collapse in membership of the Scottish Labour Party means that organisations like the RCC have increased influence, but it is distributed.

    Schools are a third rail issue in both England and Scotland and Johnston put his foot on it.
    I think that catholic voters are much more liberal than their bishops. The Catholic laity often regard contraception, abortion and homosexuality little differently to their fellow countrymen.

    Schools are different, but the desire for faith schools is very often because of perceived academic standards and discipline rather than any desire for religious instruction.

    Pope Francis seems to be trying to drag some of his dinosaur bishops into the modern age, though a liberal pope is only a relative concept!
    What an ignorant post.

    The Papal Visit showed the clergy are considerably more conservative than the bishops.

    Weasel words about what Catholic laity think do not disguise the fact that on abortion, at least, Catholics follow Church teaching.

    Laughably, you seem to have not heard of conservative bishops from Africa and South America, where most Catholics live.

    Ironically, the open door immigration policy has exposed the UK to the Worldwide growth in religion, as the Papal Visit spectacularly proved.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    Any figures on Muslims?

    I am encouraged that so many of our ethnic minorities are integrating into British life, even though I disapprove of their political choice.

    I do wonder whether some support comes from UKIP being seen as anti-muslim, something that plays well with some other religious groups.
    Ken Livingstone causes Jewish voters to skew rightwards.

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    surbiton said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    Does that mean 12% of Jews support UKIP or 12% of kippers are Jews ?
    12% of Jews surveyed support ukip
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    That's a new accusation. A strategic retreat?
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    Which major figures have accused UKIP of being Islamophobic?

    I think Ed West's conclusion is wrong anyway: religion and race are not the same thing.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,352
    Dr Fox,

    You're right about the Catholic Church. The surveys show that most Catholics are relaxed about contraception (a massive majority), divorce and even gay marriage, even in Ireland. Many priests are also happy with married priests and women priests. The Pope has conservative archbishops but that is slowly changing.

    The school issue is definitely discipline and good results. Why do fee-paying schools get better results? Facilities may matter in sport, better teaching is marginal, it's the discipline and the ethos of education being good. Faith schools do something similar and you don't have to pay.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014

    isam said:

    Isam I don't know if that's a deliberate attempt to wind me up, or just an error on your part, but I haven't once deviated from my view that UKIP will win Rochester and Strood next week.

    As you know, I have a bet on with you about the General Election which is where the real action will happen.

    Yes but you said the value bet was the tories at 3/1 and listed five 'facts' which 'proved' it

    When I disagreed, you started banging on about tub thumping kippers who don't know what they're talking about etc

    But the tories were not the value bet at 3/1, so you were wrong and I was right
    I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, maybe even if I'm right ;-).
    I thought a 'value' bet was not something that you necessarily thought would happen but one that you thought was priced better than the odds you considered correct.
    Yes it is... But that is just subjective really... It is rare for someone to make a case for something being value, and then it drift for six weeks and lose and still say "I got the value", because the market obviously disagreed

    So if the conservatives had been backed into 6/4 for instance after 3/1 was tipped as the value, that would have been fair to say even if they lost.

    But saying it was the value after something drifts constantly then loses is just refusing to admit you had a bad bet

    I backed ukip in H&M at 5/2... They opened 10/1 came into 3/1 then drifted massively and lost (albeit closely) it would be pushing it for me to say the 5/2 was value, even though I thought it should have been 7/4


    Put it this way, bookies close accounts that beat the SP. They don't if you are taking 4/1 about SP 5/1 winners because they're getting the value even though you might be in front
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Ninoinoz said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    Mr. Beds, do the bishops really have that influence? Not contradicting you, genuinely curious (being neither Catholic nor Scottish this isn't really my area).

    The failure of the Scottish Bishops to give guidance over independence enabled local parish priests and activists to give full rein to campaigning for YES. One word from the bishops would have put a stop to that.

    The collapse in membership of the Scottish Labour Party means that organisations like the RCC have increased influence, but it is distributed.

    Schools are a third rail issue in both England and Scotland and Johnston put his foot on it.
    I think that catholic voters are much more liberal than their bishops. The Catholic laity often regard contraception, abortion and homosexuality little differently to their fellow countrymen.

    Schools are different, but the desire for faith schools is very often because of perceived academic standards and discipline rather than any desire for religious instruction.

    Pope Francis seems to be trying to drag some of his dinosaur bishops into the modern age, though a liberal pope is only a relative concept!
    What an ignorant post.

    The Papal Visit showed the clergy are considerably more conservative than the bishops.

    Weasel words about what Catholic laity think do not disguise the fact that on abortion, at least, Catholics follow Church teaching.

    Laughably, you seem to have not heard of conservative bishops from Africa and South America, where most Catholics live.

    Ironically, the open door immigration policy has exposed the UK to the Worldwide growth in religion, as the Papal Visit spectacularly proved.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/most-uk-catholics-support-abortion-and-use-of-contraception-2083291.html

    Most UK Catholics support abortion and contraception. Tis you that is ignorant.

    Catholic Europe has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world, indicating that actions speak louder than rhetoric.

    I am personally glad that so many Catholics treat their Priests views so casually, and I hope that they treat being told how to vote with equal contempt.

  • Options
    foxinsox said -

    I do wonder whether some support comes from UKIP being seen as anti-muslim, something that plays well with some other religious groups.

    I think there's a section of British Jewry that sees Ed as pandering to the Livingstone/McDonnell/Corbyn wing of Israel haters.

    I saw baconsandwichgate as a panic reaction to the suspicion aroused in those quarters by his attempt to talk about his Jewishness.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    Any figures on Muslims?

    I am encouraged that so many of our ethnic minorities are integrating into British life, even though I disapprove of their political choice.

    I do wonder whether some support comes from UKIP being seen as anti-muslim, something that plays well with some other religious groups.
    0.8%!
  • Options
    FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    How can the Catholic Church change? Surely the premise is that their doctrine is based on the word of God. God changes his mind?
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    Being the only party to be against [REDACTED] attracted a lot of religious (and disproportionately ethnic minority) voters. Sticking up for that Jehovah's Witness family burnished their pro-religion credentials. Attacking the disgrace in Rotherham means that UKIP have, somehow, seized the moral high ground, mainly because no other party wanted it.

    The number of religious and ethnic minority members of UKIP acts as a very useful shield against accusations of racism.
  • Options
    Socrates said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    Which major figures have accused UKIP of being Islamophobic?

    I think Ed West's conclusion is wrong anyway: religion and race are not the same thing.
    Looks like you don't need major figures, UKIP people (James Elgar, Dave Small and Gerard Batten) make a pretty good job on their own:
    http://iengage.uk.net/news/islamophobic-remarks-ukip-candidate/
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
    http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Dave-Small-Britain-used-to-be-for-the-British.png
    http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/islamophobia/ukip-candidate-islamophobic-tweet-row/
  • Options
    FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    Any figures on Muslims?

    I am encouraged that so many of our ethnic minorities are integrating into British life, even though I disapprove of their political choice.

    I do wonder whether some support comes from UKIP being seen as anti-muslim, something that plays well with some other religious groups.
    The anti Muslim comments I hear from my Hindu and Jewish friends is really pretty vile.

    Personally I would consider those figures trivial. UKIP is clearly a majoritarian pro British political movement so I would not expect support from others, instead the strong opposition I hear towards UKIP from same friends is the standard response.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited November 2014

    Socrates said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    Which major figures have accused UKIP of being Islamophobic?

    I think Ed West's conclusion is wrong anyway: religion and race are not the same thing.
    Looks like you don't need major figures, UKIP people (James Elgar, Dave Small and Gerard Batten) make a pretty good job on their own:
    http://iengage.uk.net/news/islamophobic-remarks-ukip-candidate/
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
    http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Dave-Small-Britain-used-to-be-for-the-British.png
    http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/islamophobia/ukip-candidate-islamophobic-tweet-row/
    Nice neutral sources

    What part of janes elgars comments are incorrect?
  • Options
    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    Which major figures have accused UKIP of being Islamophobic?

    I think Ed West's conclusion is wrong anyway: religion and race are not the same thing.
    Looks like you don't need major figures, UKIP people (James Elgar, Dave Small and Gerard Batten) make a pretty good job on their own:
    http://iengage.uk.net/news/islamophobic-remarks-ukip-candidate/
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
    http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Dave-Small-Britain-used-to-be-for-the-British.png
    http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/islamophobia/ukip-candidate-islamophobic-tweet-row/
    Nice neutral sources
    That's a typical comment, not addressing the substance.
    Do you deny that these UKIP candidates and members said what was reported?
  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Isam I don't know if that's a deliberate attempt to wind me up, or just an error on your part, but I haven't once deviated from my view that UKIP will win Rochester and Strood next week.

    As you know, I have a bet on with you about the General Election which is where the real action will happen.

    Yes but you said the value bet was the tories at 3/1 and listed five 'facts' which 'proved' it

    When I disagreed, you started banging on about tub thumping kippers who don't know what they're talking about etc

    But the tories were not the value bet at 3/1, so you were wrong and I was right
    I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, maybe even if I'm right ;-).
    I thought a 'value' bet was not something that you necessarily thought would happen but one that you thought was priced better than the odds you considered correct.
    Yes it is... But that is just subjective really... It is rare for someone to make a case for something being value, and then it drift for six weeks and lose and still say "I got the value", because the market obviously disagreed

    So if the conservatives had been backed into 6/4 for instance after 3/1 was tipped as the value, that would have been fair to say even if they lost.

    But saying it was the value after something drifts constantly then loses is just refusing to admit you had a bad bet

    I backed ukip in H&M at 5/2... They opened 10/1 came into 3/1 then drifted massively and lost (albeit closely) it would be pushing it for me to say the 5/2 was value, even though I thought it should have been 7/4


    Put it this way, bookies close accounts that beat the SP. They don't if you are taking 4/1 about SP 5/1 winners because they're getting the value even though you might be in front
    "Yes it is" would have done. Thanks.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087
    Attitudinally, there's likely a big difference between Catholics who attend Church (probably still a fairly large minority of the electorate in parts of Scotland) and those who don't. I should think very few, even of the former, would vote as their priests directed, but they are responsive to a party that takes the trouble to canvass them.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,352
    Ninoinoz,

    Are you a regular reader of the 'Tablet'? It's on the liberal side of the debate, but it often shows surveys of mass-goers and priests. I didn't mention abortion because that seems to be a different matter to sexuality for the mass-goers.

    Incidentally, I've asked the Tablet to review the novel wot I wrote (An ever rolling stream, published as an e-book by Wild Wolf Publishing) as it addresses racism, and some religious issues, but I suspect I'll get a polite refusal. If you don't ask, you don't get.

    The school issue is interesting. We have regular baptisms after mass and a fair few of the families look unfamiliar with the whole concept of church. They come to have their children baptised out of family loyalties (this is Merseyside) and also to get the best local school for the kids.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,087

    Socrates said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    Which major figures have accused UKIP of being Islamophobic?

    I think Ed West's conclusion is wrong anyway: religion and race are not the same thing.
    Looks like you don't need major figures, UKIP people (James Elgar, Dave Small and Gerard Batten) make a pretty good job on their own:
    http://iengage.uk.net/news/islamophobic-remarks-ukip-candidate/
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
    http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Dave-Small-Britain-used-to-be-for-the-British.png
    http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/islamophobia/ukip-candidate-islamophobic-tweet-row/
    "Islamophobia" is simply a term used to shut down criticism of some Islamic practices.
  • Options
    FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Sean_F said:

    Attitudinally, there's likely a big difference between Catholics who attend Church (probably still a fairly large minority of the electorate in parts of Scotland) and those who don't. I should think very few, even of the former, would vote as their priests directed, but they are responsive to a party that takes the trouble to canvass them.

    Most Catholics have been Irish or other immigrants so Labour's anti English policies have always held a strong appeal. See the SNP rhetoric to win over Glasgow.
  • Options
    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    Which major figures have accused UKIP of being Islamophobic?

    I think Ed West's conclusion is wrong anyway: religion and race are not the same thing.
    Looks like you don't need major figures, UKIP people (James Elgar, Dave Small and Gerard Batten) make a pretty good job on their own:
    http://iengage.uk.net/news/islamophobic-remarks-ukip-candidate/
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
    http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Dave-Small-Britain-used-to-be-for-the-British.png
    http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/islamophobia/ukip-candidate-islamophobic-tweet-row/
    Nice neutral sources

    What part of janes elgars comments are incorrect?
    Here they are:

    "A former youth member of UKIP has been condemned both by his party and the public following a stream of Islamophobic and sexist tweets.
    James Elgar, 19, published a series of controversial tweets, including ‘#ThingsAsianBoysDo groom and rape underage white girls, stab and rob innocent old white people, bomb innocent white people #EctEctEct [sic]” and ‘There is [sic] no women in the CBB final? That’s because they are all in the kitchen where they belong…”.
    In April 2013, he published the following tweet in response to the Boston bombings: “So there are Muslims cheering and celebrating the Boston Bombings today…really, really sums them up. #scum”.
    Defending his son, Mark Elgar told journalists, “He is the least sexist and racist person you could ever meet…Last night he came home at 10.30pm with a curry.”
    A spokesperson from UKIP publically shamed the candidate: “These sorts of comments and images are utterly deplorable. Mr Elgar would appear to be a young man who still has plenty of growing up to do. Our inquiries reveal that his UKIP membership in fact lapsed on January 1, 2014 and we shall not accept any renewal application from him.”
    Despite the criticism, Elgar was still permitted to run as the UKIP candidate for his constituency, Egham Hytheward, though failed to secure a seat in the May 21st local elections."

    Could you tell me which bits you agree with?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Fenman said:

    How can the Catholic Church change? Surely the premise is that their doctrine is based on the word of God. God changes his mind?

    God does change his mind quite often in the Bible. Indeed Genesis is best interpreted as the movement in understanding of God from a tribal deity who resembles a person, towards a more conceptual force that cannot be seen. Much of the rest of the Bible continues to evolve the understanding of the meaning of God.

    Revalation did not end at the end of the Apostolic period, and the Christian perspective is that communication goes both ways. Catholics see their heirarchy as the interpreters of continuing revalation, other denominations validate revelation in other ways.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    Which major figures have accused UKIP of being Islamophobic?

    I think Ed West's conclusion is wrong anyway: religion and race are not the same thing.
    Looks like you don't need major figures, UKIP people (James Elgar, Dave Small and Gerard Batten) make a pretty good job on their own:
    http://iengage.uk.net/news/islamophobic-remarks-ukip-candidate/
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
    http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Dave-Small-Britain-used-to-be-for-the-British.png
    http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/islamophobia/ukip-candidate-islamophobic-tweet-row/
    Nice neutral sources
    That's a typical comment, not addressing the substance.
    Do you deny that these UKIP candidates and members said what was reported?
    Haha actually I edited it and did address the substance

    But James Elgars tweets aren't incorrect in my opinion.. Obviously he is generalising but people of all creeds and colour do that when angry about the actions of a minority of a group, esp in tweets... I think it's a bit rich of people to quote what he said and act as if there is no substance to it

    I agree with Gerard Battens idea, a conservative mp suggested something very similar a month or so ago in the commons

    Pretending there isn't a threat from Islamic extremists here won't make it go away.

    I spoke to a policeman yesterday who revealed some quite scary things about the number of foiled plots recently that don't get reported. The met are poised for an attack at Christmas it's almost inevitable
  • Options
    Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited November 2014
    Found a good paper reviewing the research here. The answer appears to be yes, sometimes, but its swamped by things like party affinity, and depends on the issues under consideration and the issues of the day, all voters lean more toward a male candidate when considering issues that are traditional male orientated (particularly military and law and order) and toward female candidates when considering issues that are stereotypically female areas of strength (health, family etc). This last bit suggests the key item is the extent to which you are successful in framing the debate around your candidate.

    http://www.uh.edu/~pols1oj/paper3.htm


    Foxinsoxuk
    As health and family are where Labour wants to place the debate HH would be a neat fit.



    Err nope ! This is what she has said about family so I don't think a good fit at all.


    “ It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion" .

    The rights of single mums and lone parents – that feminist untouchable - must be protected at all costs – whatever the cost.

    In 2008 she told Civitas that there was "no ideal type of household in which to bring up children”. Break that rule and the feminist construct collapses.

    Ha!
  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    Which major figures have accused UKIP of being Islamophobic?

    I think Ed West's conclusion is wrong anyway: religion and race are not the same thing.
    Looks like you don't need major figures, UKIP people (James Elgar, Dave Small and Gerard Batten) make a pretty good job on their own:
    http://iengage.uk.net/news/islamophobic-remarks-ukip-candidate/
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/04/ukip-mep-gerard-batten-muslims-sign-charter-rejecting-violence
    http://www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Dave-Small-Britain-used-to-be-for-the-British.png
    http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/islamophobia/ukip-candidate-islamophobic-tweet-row/
    Nice neutral sources
    That's a typical comment, not addressing the substance.
    Do you deny that these UKIP candidates and members said what was reported?
    Haha actually I edited it and did address the substance

    But James Elgars tweets aren't incorrect in my opinion.. Obviously he is generalising but people of all creeds and colour do that when angry about the actions of a minority of a group, esp in tweets... I think it's a bit rich of people to quote what he said and act as if there is no substance to it

    I agree with Gerard Battens idea, a conservative mp suggested something very similar a month or so ago in the commons

    Pretending there isn't a threat from Islamic extremists here won't make it go away.

    I spoke to a policeman yesterday who revealed some quite scary things about the number of foiled plots recently that don't get reported. The met are poised for an attack at Christmas it's almost inevitable
    You may agree with him but:
    "A spokesperson from UKIP publically shamed the candidate: “These sorts of comments and images are utterly deplorable. Mr Elgar would appear to be a young man who still has plenty of growing up to do."

    Who's pretending that there isn't a threat from islamic extremists? Where did you get that from?
  • Options
    FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited November 2014

    Mr. Oz, why is Johnson unacceptable to Catholics?

    Must say I've not heard that before.

    Oooh that reminds me, and I've been meaning to mention, has anyone picked up on Miliband eating that 'bacon' butty apart from him looking 'weird'? Labour traditionally has a core Muslim vote and, to lesser extent, Jewish support. Eating bacon so publicly really wasn't bright.
    Shia-Alevis - and, one assumes their Alawite Syrian cousins - are muzzles who eat pork. "It is not what goes into your mouth that matters; It is what comes out".

    :please-stfu:

    EtA: Predictive typing also fecks - up cogent comments....
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Freggles said:

    isam said:

    Ed West (@edwest)
    15/11/2014 08:43
    The non-trivial support for Ukip among Jews (12%) Sikhs (6%) and Hindus (6%) show the party beat off attempts to toxify it as racist

    But not presumably Islamophobic
    Which major figures have accused UKIP of being Islamophobic?

    I think Ed West's conclusion is wrong anyway: religion and race are not the same thing.
    /
    ?
    Here they are:

    "A former youth member of UKIP has been condemned both by his party and the public following a stream of Islamophobic and sexist tweets.
    James Elgar, 19, published a series of controversial tweets, including ‘#ThingsAsianBoysDo groom and rape underage white girls, stab and rob innocent old white people, bomb innocent white people #EctEctEct [sic]” and ‘There is [sic] no women in the CBB final? That’s because they are all in the kitchen where they belong…”.
    In April 2013, he published the following tweet in response to the Boston bombings: “So there are Muslims cheering and celebrating the Boston Bombings today…really, really sums them up. #scum”.
    Defending his son, Mark Elgar told journalists, “He is the least sexist and racist person you could ever meet…Last night he came home at 10.30pm with a curry.”
    A spokesperson from UKIP publically shamed the candidate: “These sorts of comments and images are utterly deplorable. Mr Elgar would appear to be a young man who still has plenty of growing up to do. Our inquiries reveal that his UKIP membership in fact lapsed on January 1, 2014 and we shall not accept any renewal application from him.”
    Despite the criticism, Elgar was still permitted to run as the UKIP candidate for his constituency, Egham Hytheward, though failed to secure a seat in the May 21st local elections."

    Could you tell me which bits you agree with?
    Yes, I don't think it is deplorable for a young man to feel the way he does. Remember these tweets were before the Rotherham scandal came to light. It's not wrong to say that most of the perpetrators there were Asian, we saw last week an army veteran mugged for his medals by Asians, and I think all if the 7/7 bombers were Asian as were the people behind the foiled attempts a fortnight later

    The Boston bombers were Muslims, and he is reacting to Muslims cheering them

    These things happened, they're not fictitious rumours... But you seem more upset about a teenager being angered by them

    I don't think all Asians or Muslims are bad people of course not far from it. But it is somewhat discriminatory of you to disallow teenagers to be angry at what they see happening in the world. I have heard far far worse than that in the last seven days
This discussion has been closed.