I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday? Thanks.
You tell me Labour's or the Tory's given their current announcements and then I'll make up a UKIP one for you.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It sounds like you don't go out much either. I know plenty of council estates from places like Hatfield and Basildon where people hang flags out their window on a permanent basis.
And she will see the same in the many council estates that there are in Islington. What was out of the ordinary was the number and the fact that they covered so much of the house. Astonishing? No, of course not. Unusual, yes.
She said she'd "never seen anything like it". Now I would have thought people flying two flags, or one big flag out their house would have been something "like it". The woman was utterly astonished at a fairly common site among working class and lower middle class people. Was it a sackable offence? No. But it showed that she was deeply out of touch.
As I said, she was commenting as a middle class politician, who like most middle class politicians of all parties, does not spend much time with people that hang multiple flags from their windows, drive white vans and are covered in tattoos.
She ought to, she will represent a number. They probably come to her surgeries.
Well, indeed. It's a prime example of a middle class politician being completely out of touch with a large number of her constituents.
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.
Probably. People that you approve of would surely never vote for her; only those that you despise.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.
One would assume that those who didn’t vote for her also contact her if necessary.
There is no reason why, today, such orgnisations should provide a service which, if properly organised, the state could provide. Faith schools are divisive, and provide opportunity for distrust (at best) between religions. Can I refer you to N. Ireland.
Well, there you have it, folks.
I've found the last supporter of Soviet Communism in the World.
The State should do everything, except the things it can't.
Surely it should be the other way round? Private individuals and organisations should do everything, except the things they can't?
BTW, you do know Communism lost the Cold War?
I didn’t realise that recognising one the roots of N Ireland’s problems demonstrated that one was a Communist. Of course there are things which an even handed State can do better.
The problems in Ireland long preceded the introduction of mass education, as you well know.
I also don't remember Stormont being exactly even handed.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
I doubt it was deliberate, any more than Gordon deliberately had his "bigoted woman" quote recorded. Rather lacking in self-awareness I'd have thought: in a briefly unguarded moment she showed us her true feelings and prejudices.
I do wonder if that incident from the last election campaign has coloured Milliband's reaction to this one: Labour are probably paranoid about showing how out of touch they are.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Of course if she had given any number of reasons except for what she actually said when questioned (before she knew she was deep in it):
Thornberry, who lives in a £3million home in London, later told The Telegraph she posted the photo because she thought it was "remarkable" as she had never seen a house "completely covered in flags before".
As you can see from the tweet someone posted (below) she made two years ago, she lied, then it all fell apart for her.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
I doubt it was deliberate, any more than Gordon deliberately had his "bigoted woman" quote recorded. Rather lacking in self-awareness I'd have thought: in a briefly unguarded moment she showed us her true feelings and prejudices.
I do wonder if that incident from the last election campaign has coloured Milliband's reaction to this one: Labour are probably paranoid about showing how out of touch they are.
I think, Mr L, that we’ve found a point of agreement.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.
Probably. People that you approve of would surely never vote for her; only those that you despise.
UKIP dropped in the local elections because of the fact that London (not native UKIP territory) voted.
What happened in Rochester is that the WWC defected to UKIP en masse (both from the Tories AND from Labour), whilst the UMC stayed loyal to the Tories and the public sector to Labour.
So - start looking at areas where the WWC predominate - and this leads you to the Midlands upwards.
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
A problem arises when marriages break up. All of a sudden a women with little education and often no English then has to support herself.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.
Probably. People that you approve of would surely never vote for her; only those that you despise.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
I'm not sure it actually changed, or UKIP just worded their replies differnetly (to get around their critics wording things in such a way to make it sound bad).
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?
But before she sent the apology, though, Thornberry was telling the Guardian’s Rowena Mason that she was the victim of prejudice – and that her critics were trying to ‘promote a somewhat prejudiced attitude towards Islington’. Result: even now, the row is escalating into a wider, more lethal row about Posh Londoner Miliband’s attitude to the working class.
So she started digging a hole and then proceeded to fill it while still in it.
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
I am in two minds about that, most parties hang on to an untenably policy position for months agonising about it while they get destroyed by journos and the social media. Nige saw trouble brewing and just said Reckless was wrong, and effectively killed the story stone dead. Reckless might be a bit pissed off, but thats what he is paid for, the journos lost interest immediately, we talk about it still, but for the public its a non-story now.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
But before she sent the apology, though, Thornberry was telling the Guardian’s Rowena Mason that she was the victim of prejudice – and that her critics were trying to ‘promote a somewhat prejudiced attitude towards Islington’. Result: even now, the row is escalating into a wider, more lethal row about Posh Londoner Miliband’s attitude to the working class.
So she started digging a hole and then proceeded to fill it while still in it.
Exactly. Although the pic she tweeted from yonks ago was significantly diffewrent.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?
The debate was about the status of EU nationals that are in this country at the time we leave the EU, having come to this country with the expectation of being able to settle permanently.
I would imagine that Reckless followed a train of thought re what would happen if the UK left the EU.
Instead of just saying there would be transitional arrangements that would have to be worked out he came to a 'logical' conclusion that they should be deported.
However, the logical conclusion was not a sensible one and most people would accept that people already settled in the UK would be allowed to stay. Which is a sensible policy.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
I'm not sure it actually changed, or UKIP just worded their replies differnetly (to get around their critics wording things in such a way to make it sound bad).
Mr Reckless seems to think it did. Isn't he quite big in UKIP circles?
Instead of just saying there would be transitional arrangements that would have to be worked out he came to a 'logical' conclusion that they should be deported.
The fact you think this shows how much the media distorts things. He never said the word "deported". What he said was that they should get "at least a time limited work permit". So he was talking about the transitional arrangements.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?
The debate was about the status of EU nationals that are in this country at the time we leave the EU, having come to this country with the expectation of being able to settle permanently.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?
A special policy is needed because there will be a large number of EU migrants here, many of which have been here for a long time and would have had ILR if they had been non-EU migrants. There would need to be transitional arrangements that are fair to everyone.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
Weren't people in England being prosecuted for hanging flags outside their houses until Labour changed the law?
Not forgetting people being stopped by plod for having England flags on their cars.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans. That's why what would have made Thornberry's photo extraordinary is if every house in it did have England flags hanging from them and white vans outside.
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
I doubt it was deliberate, any more than Gordon deliberately had his "bigoted woman" quote recorded. Rather lacking in self-awareness I'd have thought: in a briefly unguarded moment she showed us her true feelings and prejudices.
I do wonder if that incident from the last election campaign has coloured Milliband's reaction to this one: Labour are probably paranoid about showing how out of touch they are.
I think, Mr L, that we’ve found a point of agreement.
And when a UKIP MEP shows her true feelings about 'ting tongs'? I find myself looking from pig to man and man to pig and not seeing any difference.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?
A special policy is needed because there will be a large number of EU migrants here, many of which have been here for a long time and would have had ILR if they had been non-EU migrants. There would need to be transitional arrangements that are fair to everyone.
Have immigrants from the EU been here especially longer than immigrants from anywhere else? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Am I detecting something a little unsavoury here?
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
I think David Herdson as always with is official Conservative Party member status mindset offers no cigar to UKIP.
I believe he is wrong they deserve a real pint of Black Sheep cask ale from Yorkshire. As they are not as bitter as he is, at the prospect of shaking up his and the established parties right to rule over us , in the same its our turn way.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.
Instead of just saying there would be transitional arrangements that would have to be worked out he came to a 'logical' conclusion that they should be deported.
The fact you think this shows how much the media distorts things. He never said the word "deported". What he said was that they should get "at least a time limited work permit". So he was talking about the transitional arrangements.
Yes, poor of me not to check what he actually said.
I doubt it was deliberate, any more than Gordon deliberately had his "bigoted woman" quote recorded. Rather lacking in self-awareness I'd have thought: in a briefly unguarded moment she showed us her true feelings and prejudices.
I do wonder if that incident from the last election campaign has coloured Milliband's reaction to this one: Labour are probably paranoid about showing how out of touch they are.
I think, Mr L, that we’ve found a point of agreement.
And when a UKIP MEP shows her true feelings about 'ting tongs'? I find myself looking from pig to man and man to pig and not seeing any difference.
I'm not planning to vote for UKIP next May so I don't see the relevance of your comment. I'm fairly sure OKC isn't going to either. For the avoidance of doubt, I think calling someone "ting tong" is crass and racist and someone in public life should learn not to say that sort of thing.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
No, but isn't the problem that Ed did?
Which is why we're still discussing it instead of it being buried with a contrite apology the day it happened.
Such is the man who would be Prime Minister in a little over 5 months.....
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
No, but isn't the problem that Ed did?
Which is why we're still discussing it instead of it being buried with a contrite apology the day it happened.
Such is the man who would be Prime Minister in a little over 5 months.....
Yes, that is exactly the problem. And Cameron thought the same. As did Farage.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
It was just a neutral observation of a house in the Constituency.. the flags/van were irrelevant?
Have immigrants from the EU been here especially longer than immigrants from anywhere else? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Am I detecting something a little unsavoury here?
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
No, but it means that it's something you will see fairly often. Especially (as has been pointed out) if you are a Labour MP who has no doubt spent much of your political career doorknocking on housing estates. Not a remarkable sight that appears to demand a tweet.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.
This is exactly the sort of post that InnocentAbroad described when he left. Why do you need to be so nasty? You don't like UKIP, we get it. But you seem intent on calling their supporters names. It's very unpleasant.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mark Reckless. The poor man clearly thought he was joining a proper political outfit. Instead he was utterly humiliated by Farage for stating agreed UKIP policy, unaware that such things exist only upon Farage's whim on a given day. What's more UKIP supporters are completely relaxed about this state of affairs. This thing's a cult.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
I think the point is she laughs at her own supporters and gets sacked and a kipper MEP insults her supporters and gets away with it. Indeed kippers cannot see the problem and blame the BBC Light Entertainment Dept.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?
A special policy is needed because there will be a large number of EU migrants here, many of which have been here for a long time and would have had ILR if they had been non-EU migrants. There would need to be transitional arrangements that are fair to everyone.
Have immigrants from the EU been here especially longer than immigrants from anywhere else? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Am I detecting something a little unsavoury here?
No, they haven't. But because they can stay here without going through the visa process, they don't have ILR. Immigrants from elsewhere would have had this by now.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans. That's why what would have made Thornberry's photo extraordinary is if every house in it did have England flags hanging from them and white vans outside.
I'm afraid the reality here is that this episode has shone a bright light into the dark recesses inhabited by the snobby Hyacinth Buckets of the left. There are many metropolitan Labour voters for whom putting their cross in the same box is the only connection whatsoever they have with those who they look down their nose at.
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
We'll I think you are wrong.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
And you know she was sneering how?
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.
No, but isn't the problem that Ed did?
Which is why we're still discussing it instead of it being buried with a contrite apology the day it happened.
Such is the man who would be Prime Minister in a little over 5 months.....
Yes, that is exactly the problem. And Cameron thought the same. As did Farage.
No - Cameron and Farage thought it was a great stick to beat Ed with - as indeed it has.....
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans. That's why what would have made Thornberry's photo extraordinary is if every house in it did have England flags hanging from them and white vans outside.
I'm afraid the reality here is that this episode has shone a bright light into the dark recesses inhabited by the snobby Hyacinth Buckets of the left. There are many metropolitan Labour voters for whom putting their cross in the same box is the only connection whatsoever they have with those who they look down their nose at.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mark Reckless. The poor man clearly thought he was joining a proper political outfit. Instead he was utterly humiliated by Farage for stating agreed UKIP policy, unaware that such things exist only upon Farage's whim on a given day. What's more UKIP supporters are completely relaxed about this state of affairs. This things a cult.
Do you think that sort of comment is more likely, or less likely to make people join the kippers, and existing kipper more or less determined to vote. Do carry on
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
Ed sacked her because he has a particular vulnerability here. His own father disdained the English and said so publicly, he won't accept an English parliament, he supports Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English only matters, he excludes England as one of the nations in his "Senate of the Nations and Regions", and he wants discriminate against people of white English stock in the job market. Ms Thornberry got the short end of the stick for Ed's own failings.
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.
Yes, like you British integrated in India.
What do you mean, "you British"? Aren't you British?
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
It tells me he thought "Oh sh1t. Of course we all think they are frightfully vulgar but we mustn't let them realise that."
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.
Yes, like you British integrated in India.
Eighty or more years ago... why dont we hold all the things we did a Eighty or more years ago up to the light and see how they look.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....
Pupils at a Muslim school told inspectors it was a woman's job to stay at home and many could not say which laws to follow.
These schools don't need "urgent action". They need to be closed down.
Can the government close down independent schools?
Yes. You have to be license by OFSTED.
Is that this OFSTED:
' Ofsted was accused of “political correctness” after downgrading a top rural primary school for effectively being too English.
The education watchdog faced a backlash from MPs and parents following the decision to penalise Middle Rasen primary in Lincolnshire for not having enough black or Asian pupils.
In a report, inspectors said the school was “not yet outstanding” because pupils’ cultural development was limited by a “lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society”. '
and the OFSTED which didn't notice any problems with Rotherham's Childrens Services ?
Why are you surprised. A quango stuffed with middle class Gruaniad reading Labourites. I am surprised they didn't mark the school down for not serving quinoa.
And there was I thinking people weren't allowed to sneer any more...
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans. That's why what would have made Thornberry's photo extraordinary is if every house in it did have England flags hanging from them and white vans outside.
I'm afraid the reality here is that this episode has shone a bright light into the dark recesses inhabited by the snobby Hyacinth Buckets of the left. There are many metropolitan Labour voters for whom putting their cross in the same box is the only connection whatsoever they have with those who they look down their nose at.
Hmm. Ladbrokes still hasn't put up the race markets yet. Qualifying finished nearly two hours ago (I deliberately delayed the pre-race piece this time so I didn't end up waiting...). Bit rubbish.
Ed sacked her because he has a particular vulnerability here. His own father disdained the English and said so publicly, he won't accept an English parliament, he supports Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English only matters, he excludes England as one of the nations in his "Senate of the Nations and Regions", and he wants discriminate against people of white English stock in the job market. Ms Thornberry got the short end of the stick for Ed's own failings.
Congratulations on not mentioning Ed's lacklustre response to Rotherham.
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mark Reckless. The poor man clearly thought he was joining a proper political outfit. Instead he was utterly humiliated by Farage for stating agreed UKIP policy, unaware that such things exist only upon Farage's whim on a given day. What's more UKIP supporters are completely relaxed about this state of affairs. This things a cult.
Do you think that sort of comment is more likely, or less likely to make people join the kippers, and existing kipper more or less determined to vote. Do carry on
Less likely I'd have thought. Who'd want to join a pseudo-political outfit, advocate its 'policies' and then discovery that such things only exist according to the whim of the leader. Mark Reckless did and the poor man was humiliated. He's going to be a laughing stock amongst the Tories. Why put yourself through that?
Hmm. Ladbrokes still hasn't put up the race markets yet. Qualifying finished nearly two hours ago (I deliberately delayed the pre-race piece this time so I didn't end up waiting...). Bit rubbish.
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....
Give over even without the tweet, Cameron and the Conservatives were going no where near a brick wall. There excuses were practised and in place. If you believe the brick wall metaphor, you are deluded.
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
I thought that Populus poll was three years old?
Well spotted - nearly four - Jan 2011 - they re-tweeted it yesterday.
However, since the BNP have all but disappeared, one would hope people still don't feel 'excluded', 'offended' or 'intimidated' by an English flag, as SO observes, flying an English flag in England is hardly noteworthy......
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....
It's worse than that. EdM caddishly threw his rubenesque friend into the impact zone.
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.
Yes, like you British integrated in India.
I don't suppose you thought much about the ghettoes in England when you wrote that.
Edit There actually was a lot of integration in SA and India in the beginning, it changed when the lower orders turned up ;-)
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.
As best I can understand it:
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mark Reckless. The poor man clearly thought he was joining a proper political outfit. Instead he was utterly humiliated by Farage for stating agreed UKIP policy, unaware that such things exist only upon Farage's whim on a given day. What's more UKIP supporters are completely relaxed about this state of affairs. This things a cult.
Do you think that sort of comment is more likely, or less likely to make people join the kippers, and existing kipper more or less determined to vote. Do carry on
Less likely I'd have thought. Who'd want to join a pseudo-political outfit, advocate its 'policies' and then discovery that such things only exist according to the whim of the leader. Mark Reckless did and the poor man was humiliated. He's going to be a laughing stock amongst the Tories. Why put yourself through that?
It's hardly a welcoming beacon in the gloom to potential defectors, is it?
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
When you say out of touch, what do you mean?
Although she tried to pretend otherwise, she had seen this kind of house with flags etc before, because she had tweeted pictures of similar in the past.
If she wasn't sneering, what do you think her motivation to tweet the picture was? She was just unlucky that the house she photographed just happened to be one with flags and a van outside?
I am asking genuinely here, not pretending not to know and being sarcastic etc
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....
Give over even without the tweet, Cameron and the Conservatives were going no where near a brick wall. There excuses were practised and in place. If you believe the brick wall metaphor, you are deluded.
You don't think Mr Miliband's intervention has made Cameron's life (a lot) easier?
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....
It's worse than that. EdM caddishly threw his rubenesque friend into the impact zone.
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.
Yes, like you British integrated in India.
Eighty or more years ago... why dont we hold all the things we did a Eighty or more years ago up to the light and see how they look.
Try looking at the British expats in Spain before making such comments.
Not sure if it's related to Ladbrokes falling asleep [maybe there's some sort of strange inquiry delaying an official grid, but there's nothing on the BBC site] but Betfair's also sluggish.
I'll wait a short time but may come back later if it doesn't kick off soon.
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.
Yes, like you British integrated in India.
I don't suppose you thought much about the ghettoes in England when you wrote that.
Edit There actually was a lot of integration in SA and India in the beginning, it changed when the lower orders turned up ;-)
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
No they don't. On all counts.
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.
If she wasn't sneering, what do you think her motivation to tweet the picture was?
I suspect she was bored...knocking on doors with no one home - sent to campaign in a seat the party weren't making a serious effort in.....oh look - a house with a lot of flags! Snap! Tweet! "Hello, can I count on your support in today's election?"
What's revealing is Miliband's hypersensitivity to relations with traditional WWC supporters and gross over reaction to a single, simple tweet. He, or his office, panicked badly and turned a 5 minute wonder into a story we're still discussing days later.....
I don't suppose you thought much about the ghettoes in England when you wrote that.
Edit There actually was a lot of integration in SA and India in the beginning, it changed when the lower orders turned up ;-)
In India, it was the other way round. It was the low class workers that went out for the East India Company that integrated. It was when the elite turned up during the British Raj that didn't integrate and brought over their own women.
I have less knowledge of South Africa, but it's my understanding the Afrikaans that got their first were the most racist.
Ed sacked her because he has a particular vulnerability here. His own father disdained the English and said so publicly, he won't accept an English parliament, he supports Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English only matters, he excludes England as one of the nations in his "Senate of the Nations and Regions", and he wants discriminate against people of white English stock in the job market. Ms Thornberry got the short end of the stick for Ed's own failings.
Congratulations on not mentioning Ed's lacklustre response to Rotherham.
Remarkable restraint.
I'm still waiting to hear what you meant by "you British"?
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
I thought that Populus poll was three years old?
Well spotted - nearly four - Jan 2011 - they re-tweeted it yesterday.
However, since the BNP have all but disappeared, one would hope people still don't feel 'excluded', 'offended' or 'intimidated' by an English flag, as SO observes, flying an English flag in England is hardly noteworthy......
I only noticed because it's a poll that I think is very significant to the whole immigration debate. It was what made me quite sure that UKIP could make big inroads, and has come in handy for betting as a result
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.
Yes, like you British integrated in India.
I don't suppose you thought much about the ghettoes in England when you wrote that.
Edit There actually was a lot of integration in SA and India in the beginning, it changed when the lower orders turned up ;-)
By lower orders, you mean women, of course.
Pathetic.
Why didn't you add homophobic, racist, transgenderist etc and go the whole hog you moron.
I owe Richard Tyndall an apology. I always thought he was misguided in his doubts about Nigel Farage, whom I saw as UKIP's biggest asset. However, seeing how Farage humiliated Mark Reckless - a man who put his livelihood and career on the line for UKIP - and his airy contempt for agreed UKIP policy, I've come to the conclusion that Farage is an unpleasant individual - vainglorious and smug. UKIP should get rid of him.
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
There is nothing noteworthy about an England flag being hung anywhere in England.
There is nothing noteworthy about an England flag being hung flown anywhere in England.
Other than to wonder where such an emblem might have come from. The cross is a sign going back millennia. The red cross appears all over the place - a Saturnian image. What connection does England have with saturn?
England was formed in 925 AD by KIng Alfred's grandson Aethelstan, joining Wessex and Mercia with York, bringing three separate countries into a single entity. The outside threat of further Viking aggression was the main drive to join together. Wales complied with the new country being formed, with my ancestor Hwyl Dda agreeing to it, but he did not join it. Had Wales not consented to abide by the creation of England, the Welsh could easily have railroaded its coming into being. Looking at things now, most Welsh people would prefer to have kept England's three states separated. The Welsh defeated the Vikings without any outside help.
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.
Yes, like you British integrated in India.
What do you mean, "you British"? Aren't you British?
Comments
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
I also don't remember Stormont being exactly even handed.
I do wonder if that incident from the last election campaign has coloured Milliband's reaction to this one: Labour are probably paranoid about showing how out of touch they are.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
Thornberry, who lives in a £3million home in London, later told The Telegraph she posted the photo because she thought it was "remarkable" as she had never seen a house "completely covered in flags before".
As you can see from the tweet someone posted (below) she made two years ago, she lied, then it all fell apart for her.
How true
What happened in Rochester is that the WWC defected to UKIP en masse (both from the Tories AND from Labour), whilst the UMC stayed loyal to the Tories and the public sector to Labour.
So - start looking at areas where the WWC predominate - and this leads you to the Midlands upwards.
But before she sent the apology, though, Thornberry was telling the Guardian’s Rowena Mason that she was the victim of prejudice – and that her critics were trying to ‘promote a somewhat prejudiced attitude towards Islington’. Result: even now, the row is escalating into a wider, more lethal row about Posh Londoner Miliband’s attitude to the working class.
So she started digging a hole and then proceeded to fill it while still in it.
Instead of just saying there would be transitional arrangements that would have to be worked out he came to a 'logical' conclusion that they should be deported.
However, the logical conclusion was not a sensible one and most people would accept that people already settled in the UK would be allowed to stay. Which is a sensible policy.
Not forgetting people being stopped by plod for having England flags on their cars.
And did the LibDems ever peak?
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
I think David Herdson as always with is official Conservative Party member status mindset offers no cigar to UKIP.
I believe he is wrong they deserve a real pint of Black Sheep cask ale from Yorkshire.
As they are not as bitter as he is, at the prospect
of shaking up his and the established parties right to rule over us , in the same its our turn way.
Google "prosecuted for flying an England flag" - 5.38 million results.
Which is why we're still discussing it instead of it being buried with a contrite apology the day it happened.
Such is the man who would be Prime Minister in a little over 5 months.....
It was just a neutral observation of a house in the Constituency.. the flags/van were irrelevant?
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
Mr. Pulpstar, you are a Time Lord, and I claim five Gallifreyan shillings.
Just logged on. Will write up the pre-race piece and peruse the markets to see if anything's interesting.
Remarkable restraint.
There excuses were practised and in place.
If you believe the brick wall metaphor, you are deluded.
However, since the BNP have all but disappeared, one would hope people still don't feel 'excluded', 'offended' or 'intimidated' by an English flag, as SO observes, flying an English flag in England is hardly noteworthy......
Edit There actually was a lot of integration in SA and India in the beginning, it changed when the lower orders turned up ;-)
Although she tried to pretend otherwise, she had seen this kind of house with flags etc before, because she had tweeted pictures of similar in the past.
If she wasn't sneering, what do you think her motivation to tweet the picture was? She was just unlucky that the house she photographed just happened to be one with flags and a van outside?
I am asking genuinely here, not pretending not to know and being sarcastic etc
And you think I'm deluded......
Not sure if it's related to Ladbrokes falling asleep [maybe there's some sort of strange inquiry delaying an official grid, but there's nothing on the BBC site] but Betfair's also sluggish.
I'll wait a short time but may come back later if it doesn't kick off soon.
What's revealing is Miliband's hypersensitivity to relations with traditional WWC supporters and gross over reaction to a single, simple tweet. He, or his office, panicked badly and turned a 5 minute wonder into a story we're still discussing days later.....
I have less knowledge of South Africa, but it's my understanding the Afrikaans that got their first were the most racist.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right
Why didn't you add homophobic, racist, transgenderist etc and go the whole hog you moron.
http://youtu.be/2o_lHbrkqYo
England was formed in 925 AD by KIng Alfred's grandson Aethelstan, joining Wessex and Mercia with York, bringing three separate countries into a single entity. The outside threat of further Viking aggression was the main drive to join together. Wales complied with the new country being formed, with my ancestor Hwyl Dda agreeing to it, but he did not join it. Had Wales not consented to abide by the creation of England, the Welsh could easily have railroaded its coming into being. Looking at things now, most Welsh people would prefer to have kept England's three states separated. The Welsh defeated the Vikings without any outside help.
Clue: not the British Isles.