@Socrates: also Germany and France have had more economic austerity than we've had. Spending in real terms in Germany and France has declined more than in the UK. I've published the government spending as a percent GDP data in the past, and IIRC, France has gone from 61% to 56%. I realise that's a little bit like saying "Mike has his alcohol consumption under control, he's gone from three bottles of whisky a day to two", but it is patently incorrect to say that France and Germany have not cut government spending.
Percentage of GDP is not very comparable when the denominator is jumping around so much. You need to look at real absolute levels.
Are those goalposts heavy?
What the hell are you talking about? Since when was "as a percentage of GDP" established as the goal post? I never endorsed it as such at any time.
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
That same reddit will go completely nuts if a Republican politician says something ever so mildly offensive. Post anything even remotely controversial there and it will be buried by down votes.
Having a go at something else is all part of free speech. You can lambast what someone is saying while strongly supporting their right to say it. That's the whole damn point.
I think you're confusing the views of students groups with views of younger people. In my experience a great many young people have very libertarian mindsets on such matters, forged in part by internet culture.
The internet definitely had a libertarian culture in the past, but that's long gone now.
You clearly don't go to Buzzfeed or 9gag or many of the most popular sites for teens....
Really - go to 9gag and have a laugh. Very libertarian on occasion.
I don't go to 9gag but I do read a lot of different forums, and I simply disagree about how open minded and libertarian the internet is said to be. If you hold the "wrong" opinions you will soon see how censorious it is. The internet did used to be very libertarian, probably too much so in the days when Usenet was the big thing and the attitude was anything goes.
True, there's very much a mob mentality: Find something to complain about and gang-up.
Even on here, putting a post "supporting" Israel can bring on the hate.
As it is, the EU is proven by the Tories themselves to be nothing more than what those of us who take a pragmatic line about it warned you lot these reports would show it to be: a dull necessity.
Euroscepticism is bunk.
I notice the ease with with you dismiss the views of your fellow countrymen.
A brief inspection of the BES Survey shows three quarters of the public want immigration reduced, half of them want it reduced by a lot. The same survey, and other recent surveys have shown that this is the most important issue for voters. Immigration cannot be meaningfully reduced while we are in the EU. Ergo the majority of people at least implicitly want to leave the EU.
Up to a point Indigo. When you ask which immigrants people object to, it is not often Portuguese Nurses or Slovak barmaids.
It is not just about numbers. It is about willingness to accept common european values such as free expression.
Then the eurozone imposed ultra Austerity upon itself and faded.
Now you are openly contradicting yourself. First up the EU was 'working' and suddenly its economic policy is at fault for France's epically dismal performance in recent years.
My own view is the Eurozone is a shambles and was grotesquely badly implemented. Its different countries were not closely enough aligned. Amazingly it is still here. Its likely to stay, I wish it wouldn't. The EU is responsible for the Eurozone, but its institutions good or bad are different. Because we are not in it, the Euro, then things are going to change between us and the EU.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
Shame it wasnt on Twitter like most of these downfalls are she could have ended with
*innocent face*
Leave her alone, she's helping detoxify the Tory party.
How did her offence compare to the offence for which Aidan Burley was expelled from the Tory party? [Warning: trick question].
I believe Mr Burley didn't use racially offensive language, so no expulsion for him.
But my point was this, she is a former Tory councillor, the Kipper that made the gay marriage caused the floods was a former Tory.
It would appear that a significant number of those Tories that have defected to UKIP were of the loony, fruitcake and racist element, which in the long run helps detoxify the Tory brand.
The polling shows UKIP to the most disliked, most extreme, least fit to govern party with candidates likely to hold racist/extreme views.
Events like that on balance should help the Tory party.
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
That same reddit will go completely nuts if a Republican politician says something ever so mildly offensive. Post anything even remotely controversial there and it will be buried by down votes.
Having a go at something else is all part of free speech. You can lambast what someone is saying while strongly supporting their right to say it. That's the whole damn point.
There was (still may be for all I know) a poster on commentisfree who went under the moniker "freespeechoneeach". I always liked that name.
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
That same reddit will go completely nuts if a Republican politician says something ever so mildly offensive. Post anything even remotely controversial there and it will be buried by down votes.
Social media in the US was shown to be regularly used by around 16% of the population, with a vast preponderance to the liberal-left, its is therefore completely unrepresentative of anyone except liberal lefties. The fact that these people think it is an efficient medium for political campaigning should be a source of constant amusement to all right thinking people ;-)
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
Shame it wasnt on Twitter like most of these downfalls are she could have ended with
*innocent face*
Leave her alone, she's helping detoxify the Tory party.
How did her offence compare to the offence for which Aidan Burley was expelled from the Tory party? [Warning: trick question].
I believe Mr Burley didn't use racially offensive language, so no expulsion for him.
But my point was this, she is a former Tory councillor, the Kipper that made the gay marriage caused the floods was a former Tory.
It would appear that a significant number of those Tories that have defected to UKIP were of the loony, fruitcake and racist element, which in the long run helps detoxify the Tory brand.
The polling shows UKIP to the most disliked, most extreme, least fit to govern party with candidates likely to hold racist/extreme views.
Events like that on balance should help the Tory party.
The problem for the Tories is that 20% of their 2010 vote has gone, not just the odd barmy councillor.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
Shame it wasnt on Twitter like most of these downfalls are she could have ended with
*innocent face*
Leave her alone, she's helping detoxify the Tory party.
How did her offence compare to the offence for which Aidan Burley was expelled from the Tory party? [Warning: trick question].
I believe Mr Burley didn't use racially offensive language, so no expulsion for him.
But my point was this, she is a former Tory councillor, the Kipper that made the gay marriage caused the floods was a former Tory.
It would appear that a significant number of those Tories that have defected to UKIP were of the loony, fruitcake and racist element, which in the long run helps detoxify the Tory brand.
The polling shows UKIP to the most disliked, most extreme, least fit to govern party with candidates likely to hold racist/extreme views.
Events like that on balance should help the Tory party.
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
That same reddit will go completely nuts if a Republican politician says something ever so mildly offensive. Post anything even remotely controversial there and it will be buried by down votes.
Having a go at something else is all part of free speech. You can lambast what someone is saying while strongly supporting their right to say it. That's the whole damn point.
I think you have misunderstood. The down voting on reddit effectively censors the topic or comments that people disagree with. Anyone who wants to read the controversial comments has to choose to do so, whereas the groupthink approved stuff is displayed by default.
Then there's the moderation which imposes it's own censorship on top, when threads get killed for arbitrary reasons.
I think reddit's quite a poor example of an internet site that tolerates free speech.
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
That same reddit will go completely nuts if a Republican politician says something ever so mildly offensive. Post anything even remotely controversial there and it will be buried by down votes.
Having a go at something else is all part of free speech. You can lambast what someone is saying while strongly supporting their right to say it. That's the whole damn point.
I think you have misunderstood. The down voting on reddit effectively censors the topic or comments that people disagree with. Anyone who wants to read the controversial comments has to choose to do so, whereas the groupthink approved stuff is displayed by default.
Then there's the moderation which imposes it's own censorship on top, when threads get killed for arbitrary reasons.
I think reddit's quite a poor example of an internet site that tolerates free speech.
You have the right to say what you like. You don't have the right to require people to listen to you.
It's a silly question. Is it particularly likely that I or a family member or a good friend will be killed in a terrorist attack? No.
How likely is it that someone or someones will be killed in a terrorist attack? That's a very different question (and personally I would answer it as being somewhere between quite likely and very likely).
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
That same reddit will go completely nuts if a Republican politician says something ever so mildly offensive. Post anything even remotely controversial there and it will be buried by down votes.
Social media in the US was shown to be regularly used by around 16% of the population, with a vast preponderance to the liberal-left, its is therefore completely unrepresentative of anyone except liberal lefties. The fact that these people think it is an efficient medium for political campaigning should be a source of constant amusement to all right thinking people ;-)
Really? Because that is where most of Rand Paul's support came from, and he is from (or just is) the libertarian right. (It does not help that we and the Americans used to use "liberal" to mean two different things, though the American use has now infected pb).
And not a single Lib Dem thinks the possibility of being killed in a terrorist activity is high
Well it isn't high is it? You are way more likely to die from a whole host of other things than terrorism. About 400 drown in the UK each year, but there's no "war on rivers and the sea".
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
That same reddit will go completely nuts if a Republican politician says something ever so mildly offensive. Post anything even remotely controversial there and it will be buried by down votes.
Having a go at something else is all part of free speech. You can lambast what someone is saying while strongly supporting their right to say it. That's the whole damn point.
I think you have misunderstood. The down voting on reddit effectively censors the topic or comments that people disagree with. Anyone who wants to read the controversial comments has to choose to do so, whereas the groupthink approved stuff is displayed by default.
Then there's the moderation which imposes it's own censorship on top, when threads get killed for arbitrary reasons.
I think reddit's quite a poor example of an internet site that tolerates free speech.
I agree with you about the effect of downvoting, but I don't think most people doing that consider the impact it has in terms of hiding comments. Moderation is a sub by sub issue.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
Shame it wasnt on Twitter like most of these downfalls are she could have ended with
*innocent face*
Leave her alone, she's helping detoxify the Tory party.
How did her offence compare to the offence for which Aidan Burley was expelled from the Tory party? [Warning: trick question].
I believe Mr Burley didn't use racially offensive language, so no expulsion for him.
But my point was this, she is a former Tory councillor, the Kipper that made the gay marriage caused the floods was a former Tory.
It would appear that a significant number of those Tories that have defected to UKIP were of the loony, fruitcake and racist element, which in the long run helps detoxify the Tory brand.
The polling shows UKIP to the most disliked, most extreme, least fit to govern party with candidates likely to hold racist/extreme views.
Events like that on balance should help the Tory party.
The problem for the Tories is that 20% of their 2010 vote has gone, not just the odd barmy councillor.
From twitter, all top tories uniting to condemn Farage 'fifth column' comments.
I wonder if that is wholly wise.
Definition ''a group within a country at war who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies.'' Could be said about the Irish. But either way its emotive.
His dog whistle is an attack on all muslims. Its one thing to blame a traffic jam on immigration but to take advantage of 12 murders does seem a bit much. And if it is only a few as Farage admits - then why make the emotive remark. Easy - its a political dog whistle. He loves doing it. But in terms of multiculturalism he his saying nothing different to official tory policy. It was a bad lefty policy designed to avoid integration. Its just that tories don't seek to play politics with dead bodies.
Meantime (via BBC) ''Dr Shuja Shafi, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Nothing justifies the taking of life. Those who have killed in the name of our religion today claim to be avenging the insults made against Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace. But nothing is more immoral, offensive and insulting against our beloved Prophet than such a callous act of murder. Our thoughts, prayers and solidarity go to the families of the victims and the people of France."''
Mr. Patrick, we do not, but there's a de facto blasphemy law specially for Islam. When Jesus and Mo was 'reported', both print and broadcast media censored Mohammed.
Personally, I now think iUKIP 7.5 - 9.5 is a sell. 3.5 - 5.5 more like.
The SNP spread has finally reached realistic levels. I don't think the Scottish UNS of 45 -50 seats will actually materialise. They will end up around 30 seats. Of the 24 gains, the LD's will give up 9. Labour loses 15.
The rest is about right, at the moment, I feel. Little to play for.
I agree with you about the effect of downvoting, but I don't think most people doing that consider the impact it has in terms of hiding comments.
Whether or not people consider the impact the effect is that controversial opinions — and often they are merely unpopular opinions as opposed to wrong or offensive — are rapidly hidden from view.
And not a single Lib Dem thinks the possibility of being killed in a terrorist activity is high
Well it isn't high is it? You are way more likely to die from a whole host of other things than terrorism. About 400 drown in the UK each year, but there's no "war on rivers and the sea".
If I'm reading the tables correctly the Con/Lab/UKIP figures are about 20% that think the chances of being killed or injured in a terrorist attack are high. That's total innumeracy isn't it pass to radio 4 'more or less'.
And yet the rest have stayed, and there is still scope for some of that 20% to return to the Conservative fold on election day as they contemplate an Ed Miliband led Labour Government or Labour led Coalition. I really hope that the media keep talking up the idea that the SNP are prepared to work with a Labour led Westminster Government. Who knew that Ukip would end up being the most effective detox strategy for the Conservative Party in a decade.
You know that Kipper councillor that was dumped by the party because she said something to the BBC that was really shocking but no one would say what it was.
Well the Times has found out what she said.
A Ukip councillor was expelled from the party for allegedly saying that she had a problem with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces,” The Times can reveal.
Rozanne Duncan was kicked out last month after making “jaw-dropping” remarks to a BBC documentary-maker, but both the party and the broadcaster declined to reveal what she had said.
Shame it wasnt on Twitter like most of these downfalls are she could have ended with
*innocent face*
Leave her alone, she's helping detoxify the Tory party.
How did her offence compare to the offence for which Aidan Burley was expelled from the Tory party? [Warning: trick question].
I believe Mr Burley didn't use racially offensive language, so no expulsion for him.
But my point was this, she is a former Tory councillor, the Kipper that made the gay marriage caused the floods was a former Tory.
It would appear that a significant number of those Tories that have defected to UKIP were of the loony, fruitcake and racist element, which in the long run helps detoxify the Tory brand.
The polling shows UKIP to the most disliked, most extreme, least fit to govern party with candidates likely to hold racist/extreme views.
Events like that on balance should help the Tory party.
The problem for the Tories is that 20% of their 2010 vote has gone, not just the odd barmy councillor.
Those and online forums full rambunctious debate! When I checked this morning, the top post on reddit (possibly the biggest discussion forum on the internet) was a drawing of Muhammed.
That same reddit will go completely nuts if a Republican politician says something ever so mildly offensive. Post anything even remotely controversial there and it will be buried by down votes.
Having a go at something else is all part of free speech. You can lambast what someone is saying while strongly supporting their right to say it. That's the whole damn point.
I think you have misunderstood. The down voting on reddit effectively censors the topic or comments that people disagree with. Anyone who wants to read the controversial comments has to choose to do so, whereas the groupthink approved stuff is displayed by default.
Then there's the moderation which imposes it's own censorship on top, when threads get killed for arbitrary reasons.
I think reddit's quite a poor example of an internet site that tolerates free speech.
I agree with you about the effect of downvoting, but I don't think most people doing that consider the impact it has in terms of hiding comments. Moderation is a sub by sub issue.
I don't use Reddit, but isn't 'censoring' something that is done by those controlling the media, maybe 'voting' would be a better word when done by the users.
I would refer everyone to the thread on here on 27th January 2010 . The consensus of posters , pollsters and the betting markets for the result in the forthcoming GE was Conservative lead of 8-14% mean 12% Conservative overall majority with circa 350-355 seats to Labour 210-215 seats The immediately previous thread was on CCHQ expectations that the Conservatives would gain 10 seats from the Lib Dems .
Where did it all go wrong ?
Cameron's team under-performed, the Labour side got their shit together and the debates shook things up. But all kinds of things could produce a similar-sized move in either direction, hence the wisdom of Nick Palmer's point up-thread about the probability of NOM.
I still find it astonishing that Cameron and his team failed to win a majority in 2010. I remember going into the Christmas break 5 years ago and being convinced it was nailed-on. Even though I was disappointed at his weaselling over the Lisbon treaty (note: in hindsight, I should have taken that as a warning) Cameron was pushing at an open door, and every attempt to depose Brown failed. Labour looked finished.
Then I saw it all slip between his fingers during January, in real-time. I couldn't believe it was happening. I thought it might be a blip, but the polling position never recovered during Feb/Mar/April and I thought he'd finally blown it all when the debates happened.
When you think what Labour were up against, it was an exceptionally good performance by them to almost save 260 seats, about 40-50 more than expected.
In response to Indigo, Isam, Flightpath and others:-
And, frankly, a religion that is so insecure and brittle that it cannot survive a bit of criticism is not one worth saving or respecting, in my opinion.
The history (including very recent history) of the Catholic church wrt to blasphemy rather negates that concealed claim to be more secure, robust or tolerant than anyone else. In most Catholic countries at most times in modern history I could have been tortured to death for pointing out that Catholicism = illogical self-delusion with a large side-order of institutional child abuse.
We import vast numbers of people from an alien culture.
In that alien culture, to insult their prophet is, for over a thousand years, to invite death. We know this, and cannot pretend otherwise.
The argument that they "choose" to believe and are therefore fair game is specious nonsense.
They no more choose to believe in Islam than they choose to be black or brown or whatever. The vast majority are born into it - a few may convert to Islam after some epiphany, but that is neither here or there.
So we build an edifice that gives special protection to aliens in every respect, bar one. You cannot mock a man for his skin colour, his cultural dress, his language, his accent, his culinary and cultural practices, etc., yet we demand the right to [literally, in extremis] piss on his religion, something he values more highly and intensely than all the aforementioned put together!
Are we quite mad?
You could add that until about a hundred years ago, it was so in this country too ! After all, what are blasphemy laws ?
We import vast numbers of people from an alien culture.
In that alien culture, to insult their prophet is, for over a thousand years, to invite death. We know this, and cannot pretend otherwise.
The argument that they "choose" to believe and are therefore fair game is specious nonsense.
They no more choose to believe in Islam than they choose to be black or brown or whatever. The vast majority are born into it - a few may convert to Islam after some epiphany, but that is neither here or there.
So we build an edifice that gives special protection to aliens in every respect, bar one. You cannot mock a man for his skin colour, his cultural dress, his language, his accent, his culinary and cultural practices, etc., yet we demand the right to [literally, in extremis] piss on his religion, something he values more highly and intensely than all the aforementioned put together!
Are we quite mad?
You could add that until about a hundred years ago, it was so in this country too ! After all, what are blasphemy laws ?
Yes we are quite mad to import people from a totally alien culture, and in numbers to swamp the indigenous culture in many places. We can blame Labour and Tory equally for this. But you are quite wrong, surbiton and RodCrosby, no one in the West pisses on Islam in the manner that Islam pisses on ALL other religions and none. Don't be Dhimmies please.
I would refer everyone to the thread on here on 27th January 2010 . The consensus of posters , pollsters and the betting markets for the result in the forthcoming GE was Conservative lead of 8-14% mean 12% Conservative overall majority with circa 350-355 seats to Labour 210-215 seats The immediately previous thread was on CCHQ expectations that the Conservatives would gain 10 seats from the Lib Dems .
Where did it all go wrong ?
....
When you think what Labour were up against, it was an exceptionally good performance by them to almost save 260 seats, about 40-50 more than expected.
Labour lost 100 seats. The tories thanks to years of stupidity were miles behind to start with. If you ignore UKIP the Tories might have won 120. Why blame Cameron for your own bloated expectations. The tory gains were historically massive and Brown propped up his core vote with endless scare stories. It may just be that millions of voters did not care about Lisbon, which was voted against by the tories and signed by Brown, who was the one who actually broke a referendum pledge.
Comments
True, there's very much a mob mentality: Find something to complain about and gang-up.
Even on here, putting a post "supporting" Israel can bring on the hate.
It is not just about numbers. It is about willingness to accept common european values such as free expression.
I wonder if that is wholly wise.
But my point was this, she is a former Tory councillor, the Kipper that made the gay marriage caused the floods was a former Tory.
It would appear that a significant number of those Tories that have defected to UKIP were of the loony, fruitcake and racist element, which in the long run helps detoxify the Tory brand.
The polling shows UKIP to the most disliked, most extreme, least fit to govern party with candidates likely to hold racist/extreme views.
Events like that on balance should help the Tory party.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/07/maher-mainstream-muslims-applaud-murder-for-insulting-mohammed/
Then there's the moderation which imposes it's own censorship on top, when threads get killed for arbitrary reasons.
I think reddit's quite a poor example of an internet site that tolerates free speech.
How effective do you think the current coalition government is at dealing with the threat from extremism and terrorism?
Total effective 49%
Total ineffective 37%
And not a single Lib Dem thinks the possibility of being killed in a terrorist activity is high
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/pa8h03bwdg/InterimResults_150108_Website.pdf
How likely is it that someone or someones will be killed in a terrorist attack? That's a very different question (and personally I would answer it as being somewhere between quite likely and very likely).
fifth column
noun
a group within a country at war who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies.
That entirely describes jihadists within the UK and other European nations, does it not?
In the short term it is a blow.
Could be said about the Irish. But either way its emotive.
His dog whistle is an attack on all muslims. Its one thing to blame a traffic jam on immigration but to take advantage of 12 murders does seem a bit much. And if it is only a few as Farage admits - then why make the emotive remark. Easy - its a political dog whistle. He loves doing it.
But in terms of multiculturalism he his saying nothing different to official tory policy. It was a bad lefty policy designed to avoid integration. Its just that tories don't seek to play politics with dead bodies.
Meantime (via BBC)
''Dr Shuja Shafi, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Nothing justifies the taking of life. Those who have killed in the name of our religion today claim to be avenging the insults made against Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace. But nothing is more immoral, offensive and insulting against our beloved Prophet than such a callous act of murder. Our thoughts, prayers and solidarity go to the families of the victims and the people of France."''
The SNP spread has finally reached realistic levels. I don't think the Scottish UNS of 45 -50 seats will actually materialise. They will end up around 30 seats. Of the 24 gains, the LD's will give up 9. Labour loses 15.
The rest is about right, at the moment, I feel. Little to play for.
Absolutely. They are bricking it because Farage is laying the blame at the foot of the culprits.
Our leaders since the early 1990s.
How dare he?
Then I saw it all slip between his fingers during January, in real-time. I couldn't believe it was happening. I thought it might be a blip, but the polling position never recovered during Feb/Mar/April and I thought he'd finally blown it all when the debates happened.
When you think what Labour were up against, it was an exceptionally good performance by them to almost save 260 seats, about 40-50 more than expected.