@Richard_Nabavi You could also have pointed out that Christianity put medical knowledge back thousands of years when it became mainstream in Britain?
What? Christianity became mainstream in Britain in the days of the Roman occupation and after the Germanic "invasion" was dominant certainly by about 700AD. If Christianity set back medical knowledge by thousands of years that would mean that it was put back to the level it was in the early Bronze Age, which is of course complete nonsense.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire brought about a collapse in literacy, population, and living standards (including medical knowledge). Gibbon did blame Christianity for the Empire's fall, but I don't think his judgement was fair.
I agree to all of that, but the original claim was that the arrival of Christianity set medical knowledge back thousands of years. Much knowledge was indeed lost with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but the idea that medicine went back to the times of the early bronze age is simply wrong.
...and this is sort of where western civilisation is today. We're fat, lazy, arrogant, rich, oversexed, drunk, complacent. Maybe having an enemy culture planted within our midst is actually a blessing in disguise. We might wake up and stop devoting all our waking energies to dancing competitions, cooking shows, porn, bling and trinkets and marches for lesbian goldfish rights. We have become decadent...
Not to mention the Alhambra Palace or Istanbul almost in its entirety! Izzy just isn't an art lover
When you say Istanbul, do you include Hagia Sophia?
You wouldn't want to do that, its a Greek Orthodox Basilica, commanded by Justinian, the Byzantine Emperor, who was a Christian. It only became a mosque much later.
Thank you for springing my Roger-trap before he fell into it, which I am certain he would have done.
Well, on art, you could start by visiting the V and A (and make sure you don't miss the carpets, which are just 'some carpets' in the sense that Michaelangelo just painted 'some pictures'), or consider the Taj Mahal, or Isfahan.
On science it's hard to know where to start, but basically for hundreds of years Arabic scientists and mathematicians were the biz.
On literature, the fact that you can't think of any is because you haven't bothered to find out about it.
etc etc
A carpet's a carpet. proper art ain't in the V and A.
Taj Mahal - is ok but again a decorative rather than artistic achievement. Seeing it in the flesh adds strikingly little to seeing a photograph of it.
Science and maths are highly culture-independent. the Sumerians, babylon, egypt, Greece all equally good at maths.
Literature - I can, with difficulty, read classical Arabic. So I've bothered a bit more than you think.
But as I say this is all whataboutery anyway. If muslims discovered the circulation of the blood and wrote bloody Hamlet that hasd a limited bearing on their present-day propensity to go about murdering people.
The Muslims did invent zero, and Arabic numerals are far easier to do maths in than Roman numerals. I think they also invented chess and polo, as well.
"... Of course this is probably because Islam is complete and there's nothing more to be said"
Mr. Bond might I think provide an answer to my question of why scientific thought in the Muslim world suddenly stopped. Yet for hundreds of years science and mathematics flourished under Islam. So it is reasonable to suggest that something happened to get to the Islam is complete state of mind. I wonder what.
The gist of the link I posted is that Islam fizzled intellectually when it had wiped out by assimilation all the civilisations whose ideas it was appropriating.
The Byzantine empire doesn't really count as an Islamic achievement because it was established by the Romans and taken over. You have to look pretty hard for comparable empires set up from scratch.
For me the interesting thing is how, given Islam's technophobia, its fundamentalist adherents got comfortable with using things like phones and computers. Surely these are just witchcraft not described in the Kerrang, and people should be killed for using them?
I didn't see Richard's post. Which were the proposals I put forward that seem to go out of the way to insult other people's religions? Does accurately describing Mohammed as someone that sexually interfered with children count, even though it's a historical fact? What about describing Scientology as a cult that brutally exploitative and harassing of its critics?
In your four step system, do you agree that these comments should be banned then?
"Cut off their heads and fingers."
"Punishments have been prepared [for Muslims]. They'll be burnt and beaten."
"Go to war with them Moslems. Deal with them properly. God's on our side."
In my opinion, your suggestions in various posts that Muslims should be required to reject various aspects of Islam in order to be allowed to live here interfere with freedom of opinion, and your interest in Mohammed's alleged sex life is unreasonable and seemingly motivated by wanting to have a go at Islam. Even today we argue over the age of consent (it's 12 in Spain, I believe) and about the precise nature of sexual behaviour by even current figures, let alone over 1000 years ago. I'm not arguing that your views should be illegal, merely that I disagree with them and you seem so obsessive about them that I now often skip your posts. (No reason why that should bother you, of course.)
And yes, I think that the first and third comments should be and probably are illegal (the middle one is arguably a prediction rather than an incitement, like saying "Sinners will go to hell", which I'd see as a legal statement of opinion). Knowing your style, I suspect they are actually statements by radical imams and you've changed the words? But I'd say the same whoever said them.
I didn't see Richard's post. Which were the proposals I put forward that seem to go out of the way to insult other people's religions? Does accurately describing Mohammed as someone that sexually interfered with children count, even though it's a historical fact? What about describing Scientology as a cult that brutally exploitative and harassing of its critics?
In your four step system, do you agree that these comments should be banned then?
"Cut off their heads and fingers."
"Punishments have been prepared [for Muslims]. They'll be burnt and beaten."
"Go to war with them Moslems. Deal with them properly. God's on our side."
In my opinion, your suggestions in various posts that Muslims should be required to reject various aspects of Islam in order to be allowed to live here interfere with freedom of opinion, and your interest in Mohammed's alleged sex life is unreasonable and seemingly motivated by wanting to have a go at Islam. Even today we argue over the age of consent (it's 12 in Spain, I believe) and about the precise nature of sexual behaviour by even current figures, let alone over 1000 years ago. I'm not arguing that your views should be illegal, merely that I disagree with them and you seem so obsessive about them that I now often skip your posts. (No reason why that should bother you, of course.)
And yes, I think that the first and third comments should be and probably are illegal (the middle one is arguably a prediction rather than an incitement, like saying "Sinners will go to hell", which I'd see as a legal statement of opinion). Knowing your style, I suspect they are actually statements by radical imams and you've changed the words? But I'd say the same whoever said them.
The second one is the best of the lot - for lawyers
"... Of course this is probably because Islam is complete and there's nothing more to be said"
Mr. Bond might I think provide an answer to my question of why scientific thought in the Muslim world suddenly stopped. Yet for hundreds of years science and mathematics flourished under Islam. So it is reasonable to suggest that something happened to get to the Islam is complete state of mind. I wonder what.
The gist of the link I posted is that Islam fizzled intellectually when it had wiped out by assimilation all the civilisations whose ideas it was appropriating.
The Byzantine empire doesn't really count as an Islamic achievement because it was established by the Romans and taken over. You have to look pretty hard for comparable empires set up from scratch.
For me the interesting thing is how, given Islam's technophobia, its fundamentalist adherents got comfortable with using things like phones and computers. Surely these are just witchcraft not described in the Kerrang, and people should be killed for using them?
If you look at the various empires that rose and then collapsed or rather stopped advancing you need only look at the Chinese. Using gunpowder, mathematics, advanced ceramics , steel etc long before the West and then - like Islam - it all stopped.
Why? Well the Chinese also built the Great Wall and viewed foreigners as inferiors so they had nothing to learn from them. So they stopped innovating : there was no perceived need and no new frontiers to conquer.
No, they won't be, in my terms more moral than I am. If the future turns out to be a fascist hell-hole where it's considered moral to be beat up black people on the streets, it will be less moral. Beating up black people on account of their skin colour isn't only immoral because we happen to think it at the time. It's immoral because the argument that people should not have to undergo persecution because of something out of their control is highly compelling. The immorality of that does not change as the degree of racial tolerance goes up and down.
I also don't think the Western world holds the trump card on what's moral. Something like the late reign of Ashoka over the Maurya Empire was probably more moral than Europe at the time.
... and if we discover in future scientific advances that the foetus has consciousness and feeling from 10 weeks, possibly a century further on we are able to determine that being or some form of consciousness exists from conception. That might be considered magic to today's scientists, but so would doppler ultrasound scans that we use to look at fetuses today to a 17th century scientist. Where does that leave us on abortion now.
In 500 years time, still closer than the times of the prophet to us, we might gain scientific evidence for an afterlife of some sort, we might then feel it had been completely immoral to keep people alive on ventilators, or with a poor quality of life when they could be allowed to move on to their next life painlessly....
I am no fan of moral relativism, but absolute moral correct for all time is bunk, and arrogant bunk at that, you look at morals now and think what looks right to you, your perspective is a snapshot in time, people looking from other places in time will have a different view, you can't say with any justification your view is any better than theirs.
If at some point in the future we find out that early foetuses have consciousness or a (pleasant) afterlife exists, you'd be right that we were unknowingly doing immoral things now. However, this is a big difference compared to pogroms against Jews or chattel slavery, where the people that did such things could visibly see and know the suffering they were causing.
What else is moral relativism than saying slavery was moral then and is immoral now? You're openly arguing for moral relativism.
For what it's worth, I think you can say that people looking some places and some times can have a 'better' view than others. The more knowledge you accumulate, the more you allow people to express different opinions, and the more you go out of your way to hear them and be open to them, the more likely you are to have a better view. This is the reason I support free speech and vigorous argument so much.
Morality is a slippery concept. Abortion is an example. Many years ago, a child's life was less important than an adults, probably because half of them died before they were five years old. Now, that is not so.
Yet we have a cut-off for what we define as a person. In years to come, medical science could potentially save many of those "non-persons" and we might look back and say .. "they killed them because they were inconvenient - what bastards they were."
I'm not advocating we ban abortion, by the way, just pointing out that judging people on modern morals is pointless.
Labour polled sub-30 with Brown, in spite of Scotland backing him big time and his incumbency advantage of being able to claim 'no time for a novice'.
Miliband is a novice who has no groundswell of popularity in any part of the country or among any group. He isn't popular with the young, the old, the rich, the poor, the English, the Scots. He's a dud.
He lost the Euros, which only a routed Kinnock against Peak Thatcher had previously managed to do.
The elections since 2013 tell us much more than the opinion polls.
Labour will do well in the North (especially nw) and ethnic urban areas, but get slaughtered in small town England and across Scotland.
The areas they do well in, they will still do less well than they would with a different leader.
The information is there in the by-elections, the council elections, the euros, the indyref.
Douglas Carswell on the Daily Politics now pointing out UKIP would spend £9bn less pa on Overseas Aid... Farage must have a sniper in the studio pointing a gun at his head eh?
Art - what art? Some carpets? Science and maths are not religious undertakings, medicine - there wasn't any useful medicine anywhere before Vesalius at the very earliest; the Arab tradition just repeated and amplified the delusions of that staggering old bore Galen. Literature - can't think of any, trade - do you include the slave trade? They were good at that (though to be fair probably underperformed Christendom in terms of volume).
An impressive display of ignorance if ever there was one!
I thought that too. What has always puzzled me is why the development in the sciences that had taken place in the Arab world came to such a juddering halt. It seems that around the early 14th century scientific thinking in the Islamic world just stopped, almost as if there was a collective decision that enough knowledge had been gained and it was time to do something else.
It's an opinion piece with which one can disagree but it's not obviously unsustainable.
Mr. Bond, thank you for the link to a very interesting piece. I am not sure its central idea, that Arab/Muslim scientists and mathematicians weren't Arab and Muslim only by force, holds -though I it is true that probably the most famous Arab mathematician, al-Khorezmi (who gave us the Algorithm), was born in modern day Uzbekistan.
Strike bans effectively legalise forced labour. The UK’s Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin told Daily Telegraph readers that “union leaders are holding Britain to ransom”. No they are not; they are negotiating for better pay. They are no more holding Britain to ransom than City traders demanding higher bonuses. In a free market sellers demand the highest prices the market will bear and those who sell their labour are no different to any other commodity traders. Government legislated strike bans are just the other side of the coin to government enforced price controls.
...If the Tories are so sure the public is on their side they should fire the strikers and hire replacements. If the pay offered is fair the replacements will be found. If not, pay up. That is the free market way.
The tragedy of Japan in the mid-17th century is that it self-imposed an end to its advancement purely because of an autocratic overreaction to Western trade and missionaires. (Which is not to say the next 250 years did not throw up a few geniuses -- Hokusai and Chikamatsu, for instance.)
Afternoon all. Intellectual, forward-looking Islam was traumatised by the Mongol incursions. I think it's fair to say that it never fully recovered.
That said, in the early medieval the great Islamic cities (e.g. Cordoba, Bukhara, Samarkand) put their European counterparts to shame.
The Muslims overran two great civilisations. Persia, and the Syrian, Egyptian, and North African provinces of the Roman Empire. They had the sense (and good luck) not to destroy what they conquered, and built on it. Byzantine scholarship remained every bit as impressive as that of the Muslim world.
The people who conquered the Western Roman Empire had a far more devastating effect on civilisation.
@Richard_Nabavi You could also have pointed out that Christianity put medical knowledge back thousands of years when it became mainstream in Britain?
What? Christianity became mainstream in Britain in the days of the Roman occupation and after the Germanic "invasion" was dominant certainly by about 700AD. If Christianity set back medical knowledge by thousands of years that would mean that it was put back to the level it was in the early Bronze Age, which is of course complete nonsense.
The fall of the Western Roman Empire brought about a collapse in literacy, population, and living standards (including medical knowledge). Gibbon did blame Christianity for the Empire's fall, but I don't think his judgement was fair.
I agree to all of that, but the original claim was that the arrival of Christianity set medical knowledge back thousands of years. Much knowledge was indeed lost with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but the idea that medicine went back to the times of the early bronze age is simply wrong.
A lot of the knowledge was stored in the Great Library of Alexandria. Find out who did what to it and why.
The Muslim Empire had a lot of accomplishments but they had a massive liking for slaves. At one time, Christian boys were forced to convert and made into a fighting force of slaves (The Janissaries).
We queue up to complain about enslavement of Africans by Westerners but the Arabs were the past masters.
Different times indeed but if ISIS aren't stopped ...
Morality is a slippery concept. Abortion is an example. Many years ago, a child's life was less important than an adults, probably because half of them died before they were five years old. Now, that is not so.
Yet we have a cut-off for what we define as a person. In years to come, medical science could potentially save many of those "non-persons" and we might look back and say .. "they killed them because they were inconvenient - what bastards they were."
I'm not advocating we ban abortion, by the way, just pointing out that judging people on modern morals is pointless.
And there was a time when women were hanged for infanticide...
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead.
I'm going to conclude that Ed isn't crap enough to motivate anybody to change their opinion, and the people who like Labour are going to vote Labour.
I think its crap fatigue, we have examined his crapness from just about every possible angle and perspective over the last almost five years and there isn't much more to say. I mean we can all past in our favourite EIC soundbites I suppose, but most people seem to be more engaged with the actually surprising civilised discussion of history and ethics.
If you ask me comment of the day so far to Mr Nabavi
Well, on art, you could start by visiting the V and A (and make sure you don't miss the carpets, which are just 'some carpets' in the sense that Michaelangelo just painted 'some pictures')...
I don't believe that Muslims should be required to reject aspects of Islam in order to be allowed to live here. I think we should prevent those that believe in conservative interpretations of Islam (about ~40% or so of Muslims, but still) to immigrate here, and I believe those that have such opinions who are already here should be vigorously argued against. The latter is just free and democratic debate, while the former is the same level as requiring an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
The age of consent in Spain is 16.
I would agree that an interest in the sexual acts of Mohammed would be unreasonable as a historical figure, but he is not just a historical figure is he? He is someone whose every word is held up as a perfect truth by one in twenty Britons. Therefore it's entirely legitimate to truly scrutinise his moral behaviour. Left wing people are very happy to apply scrutiny to Churchill's arguments about gassing the Kurds in the 1920s. Why is Mohammed suddenly off-limits for actual actions he carried out? It's pure ideological bias.
And yes, I think that the first and third comments should be and probably are illegal (the middle one is arguably a prediction rather than an incitement, like saying "Sinners will go to hell", which I'd see as a legal statement of opinion). Knowing your style, I suspect they are actually statements by radical imams and you've changed the words? But I'd say the same whoever said them.
You got me that they weren't actual Daily Mail comments. Here are the actual quotes:
“God’s curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls."
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another…”
"Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.”
“Believers, know that the idolaters are unclean."
“Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron."
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.”
“The unbelievers among the People of the Bible and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.”
I'm sure radical imams have said them, but I'm quoting them from the Koran. It's good to know that you think such material should be illegal. Or is this a special case of 'non-radical' Muslims getting an opt-out again?
Will Ed Miliband support banning those connected with terrorism or even those with terrorist convictions from moving here from the EU?
EDIT: I also like how when Nigel Farage mentions the failures of multiculturalism when discussing French citizens attacking their own country, he is "politicising" the issue, but Miliband is quite happy to bring the EU into the mix.
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead. .
I know. Totally agree and was going to say something earlier but it's too wearying. I know events have been huge but it would be quite nice to focus on non-Muslim domestic politics instead of the usual rants. It's putting me right off this site.
So, Lord Ashcroft's poll is at 4pm I believe? Do we have a previous poll by which to check trends (which is important), or is this wholly new?
If Tories are going to talk about 'living within our means', then I think the appalling trade deficit becomes fair game. The deficit is not the only one.
You got me that they weren't actual Daily Mail comments. Here are the actual quotes:
“God’s curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls."
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another…”
"Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.”
“Believers, know that the idolaters are unclean."
“Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron."
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.”
“The unbelievers among the People of the Bible and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.”
I'm sure radical imams have said them, but I'm quoting them from the Koran. It's good to know that you think such material should be illegal. Or is this a special case of 'non-radical' Muslims getting an opt-out again?
I'm sure that similar extracts can be made from the Old Testament. One that springs to mind is from Kings 2 where Elijah was made fun of by some city children 'cause he was bald so he cursed them 'in the name of the Lord' and 2 she bears tore 42 kids to bits!
Art - what art? Some carpets? Science and maths are not religious undertakings, medicine - there wasn't any useful medicine anywhere before Vesalius at the very earliest; the Arab tradition just repeated and amplified the delusions of that staggering old bore Galen. Literature - can't think of any, trade - do you include the slave trade? They were good at that (though to be fair probably underperformed Christendom in terms of volume).
An impressive display of ignorance if ever there was one!
I thought that too. What has always puzzled me is why the development in the sciences that had taken place in the Arab world came to such a juddering halt. It seems that around the early 14th century scientific thinking in the Islamic world just stopped, almost as if there was a collective decision that enough knowledge had been gained and it was time to do something else.
It's an opinion piece with which one can disagree but it's not obviously unsustainable.
Mr. Bond, thank you for the link to a very interesting piece. I am not sure its central idea, that Arab/Muslim scientists and mathematicians weren't Arab and Muslim only by force, holds -though I it is true that probably the most famous Arab mathematician, al-Khorezmi (who gave us the Algorithm), was born in modern day Uzbekistan.
Yes, he has an Assyrian axe to grind all right, but with that discounted the account of why everything crawled to a stop makes a certain amount of sense.
"A lot of the knowledge was stored in the Great Library of Alexandria. Find out who did what to it and why"
Well, the Muslim conquerors of 641AD did, supposedly, have good go, "if it is in the Koran it is duplication and if it isn't it is blasphemy". I say supposedly because the are good reasons to doubt the veracity of that story.
There are also other candidates for the destruction of the Library, not least by the Christians during the tail end of the fourth century AD.
Afternoon all. Intellectual, forward-looking Islam was traumatised by the Mongol incursions. I think it's fair to say that it never fully recovered.
That said, in the early medieval the great Islamic cities (e.g. Cordoba, Bukhara, Samarkand) put their European counterparts to shame.
The Muslims overran two great civilisations. Persia, and the Syrian, Egyptian, and North African provinces of the Roman Empire. They had the sense (and good luck) not to destroy what they conquered, and built on it. Byzantine scholarship remained every bit as impressive as that of the Muslim world.
The people who conquered the Western Roman Empire had a far more devastating effect on civilisation.
People always ignore the Byzantines, and indeed the Ottoman Empire.
It was the monks who preserved much of Western thought. Also I think people really underappreciate the magnificence of medieval Cathedrals, phenominal achievements.
O/T, why does Carswell always do that twuntish thing of doing two thumbs up when he's being photographed? Is he worried someone in 2045 will say he groped her in 2014 and this is his way of accounting for where his hands are?
TCP: I think Miliband will continue to lose SLAB support, as his trust ratings are so low. More worryingly, however much Scottish Tories like Murphy, at the end of the day if they vote tactically for SLAB - they're effectively voting for Miliband.
Cameron is more popular in Scotland than Miliband. This unusual set of ratings coincides with Labour falling behind the SNP. Maybe the SLAB MPs should have mounted a coup against Miliband rather than Lamont?
Carn: She did resign, tbf to her. The impression I got was that many would have regarded it as utterly below their dignity as Members of the Westminster Parliament to admit that Johann Lamont was their leader at all - which was part of the problem of course - so bothering to sack her would have been beyond the pale.
Back to the main point of your argument: I seem to recall that, in fact, Mr C was always more popular than Mr Miliband, well before the Labour/SNP crossover which did not take place till about indyref time (I assume you mean Westminster VI). You might want to check that, as it would imply that these two phenomena are [edit: not necessarily] directly related in a causal sense?
TCP: Yes Lamont was a duffer but Miliband has done more damage to SLAB's chances than she did. Miliband has been there since 2010 and the SNP got their majority in 2011.
Carn: Ah, I see now. I thought you were talking about Westminster (where Mr M is a more important figure), but the 2011 majority was for Holyrood, and hitherto the two VIs have been very different in Scotland.
The issue here seems to be that the Westminster VI has suddenly been made almost the same as the Holyrood VI, i.e. tactical voting for Labour to keep the Tories out has transferred to SNP and/or been abandoned and/or many voters have deserted Labour full stop. (HYUFD's point re reverse tactical voting by Tories and LDs and other Unionists stands, of course.)
That change in Westminster VI actually took place at indyref - Mr Numbercruncher had a nice graph of this recently on PB IIRC - which is well after - as you say - Mr M became Leader of the Opposition. How and why this happened is not entirely clear to me - indyref obviously had something to do with it - but it may very well be that having Mr M in charge of Labour is a necessary - but not sufficient - condition for the Westminster VI change. And perhaps for the 2011 change, though that was focussed far more on the Scottish party leaders such as Ian Gray and I'm not sure Mr M played much role there.
You got me that they weren't actual Daily Mail comments. Here are the actual quotes:
“God’s curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls."
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another…”
"Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.”
“Believers, know that the idolaters are unclean."
“Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron."
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.”
“The unbelievers among the People of the Bible and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.”
I'm sure radical imams have said them, but I'm quoting them from the Koran. It's good to know that you think such material should be illegal. Or is this a special case of 'non-radical' Muslims getting an opt-out again?
I'm sure that similar extracts can be made from the Old Testament. One that springs to mind is from Kings 2 where Elijah was made fun of by some city children 'cause he was bald so he cursed them 'in the name of the Lord' and 2 she bears tore 42 kids to bits!
I paraphrased a bit.
The story of the bears that ate the children who mocked the prophet Elijah was referenced by P.G. Wodehouse in his introduction to the first edition of his novel, "Summer Lightning". And with that claim to the most useless information of the day competition I must go out for lunch.
My thanks to all for an interesting mornings conversation.
O/T, why does Carswell always do that twuntish thing of doing two thumbs up when he's being photographed? Is he worried someone in 2045 will say he groped her in 2014 and this is his way of accounting for where his hands are?
It's a subtle reference to Anna Soubry's comments about Farage liking a finger up the bum.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 6m6 minutes ago "Super-ELBOW" of all polls with field-work end-date 1st Dec to Xmas. Lab 33.7, Con 32.0, UKIP 15.5, LD 7.4, Green 6.0
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead. .
I know. Totally agree and was going to say something earlier but it's too wearying. I know events have been huge but it would be quite nice to focus on non-Muslim domestic politics instead of the usual rants. It's putting me right off this site.
So, Lord Ashcroft's poll is at 4pm I believe? Do we have a previous poll by which to check trends (which is important), or is this wholly new?
The last Lord Ashcroft poll was on the 7th of December it was Ashcroft National Poll: Con 30%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 19%, Green 5%
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead.
I'm going to conclude that Ed isn't crap enough to motivate anybody to change their opinion, and the people who like Labour are going to vote Labour.
Its more indicative of how much some posters are obsessed with non white non Christian people.
The board no longer really functions as a discussion of general politics TBF - just a bore off about stopping Islam whilst not letting the government hack your emails.
O/T, why does Carswell always do that twuntish thing of doing two thumbs up when he's being photographed? Is he worried someone in 2045 will say he groped her in 2014 and this is his way of accounting for where his hands are?
“We have to persuade the undecideds by offering a positive vision of what this country could look like as an open, global player.”
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead. .
I know. Totally agree and was going to say something earlier but it's too wearying. I know events have been huge but it would be quite nice to focus on non-Muslim domestic politics instead of the usual rants. It's putting me right off this site.
So, Lord Ashcroft's poll is at 4pm I believe? Do we have a previous poll by which to check trends (which is important), or is this wholly new?
Ed Miliband doesn't really inspire much... either way methinks.
You got me that they weren't actual Daily Mail comments. Here are the actual quotes:
“God’s curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls."
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another…”
"Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.”
“Believers, know that the idolaters are unclean."
“Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron."
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.”
“The unbelievers among the People of the Bible and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.”
I'm sure radical imams have said them, but I'm quoting them from the Koran. It's good to know that you think such material should be illegal. Or is this a special case of 'non-radical' Muslims getting an opt-out again?
I'm sure that similar extracts can be made from the Old Testament. One that springs to mind is from Kings 2 where Elijah was made fun of by some city children 'cause he was bald so he cursed them 'in the name of the Lord' and 2 she bears tore 42 kids to bits!
I paraphrased a bit.
The story of the bears that ate the children who mocked the prophet Elijah was referenced by P.G. Wodehouse in his introduction to the first edition of his novel, "Summer Lightning". And with that claim to the most useless information of the day competition I must go out for lunch.
My thanks to all for an interesting mornings conversation.
The moral of the story is that you mock at your peril, middle-aged men who are going bald
(Joking aside, the people who mocked Elijah do sound rather like a lynch mob).
"A lot of the knowledge was stored in the Great Library of Alexandria. Find out who did what to it and why"
Well, the Muslim conquerors of 641AD did, supposedly, have good go, "if it is in the Koran it is duplication and if it isn't it is blasphemy". I say supposedly because the are good reasons to doubt the veracity of that story.
There are also other candidates for the destruction of the Library, not least by the Christians during the tail end of the fourth century AD.
The Catholics were hugely at fault for the loss of the greatest city in Christendom to the Muslims. Had they not sacked Constantinople previously, the Roman Empire probably would have stopped the Islamic onslaught.
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead.
I'm going to conclude that Ed isn't crap enough to motivate anybody to change their opinion, and the people who like Labour are going to vote Labour.
Its more indicative of how much some posters are obsessed with non white non Christian people.
The board no longer really functions as a discussion of general politics TBF - just a bore off about stopping Islam whilst not letting the government hack your emails.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
...and incorrect statements that we have reached "Peak Kipper"
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead.
I'm going to conclude that Ed isn't crap enough to motivate anybody to change their opinion, and the people who like Labour are going to vote Labour.
Its more indicative of how much some posters are obsessed with non white non Christian people.
The board no longer really functions as a discussion of general politics TBF - just a bore off about stopping Islam whilst not letting the government hack your emails.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Yeah I can see it's less fun for you while everyone isn't bashing kippers, never mind I am sure there will be a need to make some more pointless comments in that regard shortly, you might even be able to mention "ting-tongs" again if you are lucky, and then you will be back in business, and other people will being going ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
I might be wrong, but I think people might also object be being blown up or shot by even white non-christian people, possibly even white christian people. However living in the UK the first is rather less likely, and the second so small as to be almost non-existent, although that wasn't always the case clearly.
I didn't see Richard's post. Which were the proposals I put forward that seem to go out of the way to insult other people's religions? Does accurately describing Mohammed as someone that sexually interfered with children count, even though it's a historical fact? What about describing Scientology as a cult that brutally exploitative and harassing of its critics?
In your four step system, do you agree that these comments should be banned then?
"Cut off their heads and fingers."
"Punishments have been prepared [for Muslims]. They'll be burnt and beaten."
"Go to war with them Moslems. Deal with them properly. God's on our side."
In my opinion, your suggestions in various posts that Muslims should be required to reject various aspects of Islam in order to be allowed to live here interfere with freedom of opinion, and your interest in Mohammed's alleged sex life is unreasonable and seemingly motivated by wanting to have a go at Islam. Even today we argue over the age of consent (it's 12 in Spain, I believe) and about the precise nature of sexual behaviour by even current figures, let alone over 1000 years ago. I'm not arguing that your views should be illegal, merely that I disagree with them and you seem so obsessive about them that I now often skip your posts. (No reason why that should bother you, of course.)
And yes, I think that the first and third comments should be and probably are illegal (the middle one is arguably a prediction rather than an incitement, like saying "Sinners will go to hell", which I'd see as a legal statement of opinion). Knowing your style, I suspect they are actually statements by radical imams and you've changed the words? But I'd say the same whoever said them.
I don't think an interest in Mohammed's sex life is unreasonable at all. Not when he is an idol to millions. And do those millions wish him to be judged by the standards of his time? In some cases probably yes, but others feel he set the standard for all time; he was a prophet after all. Labour does seem to have trouble dealing with the Islam thing and it's one reason I think you should be wary of all those red liberals you need in May. Many could quite quickly desert you once the Tories are out of power. You're losing young people to the geens and there comes a point where a Labour government wouldn't feel legitimate - 31/32% even if the Maths looks okay.
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead.
I'm going to conclude that Ed isn't crap enough to motivate anybody to change their opinion, and the people who like Labour are going to vote Labour.
Its more indicative of how much some posters are obsessed with non white non Christian people.
The board no longer really functions as a discussion of general politics TBF - just a bore off about stopping Islam whilst not letting the government hack your emails.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Or incorrect statements that we have reached "Peak Kipper"
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead.
I'm going to conclude that Ed isn't crap enough to motivate anybody to change their opinion, and the people who like Labour are going to vote Labour.
Its more indicative of how much some posters are obsessed with non white non Christian people.
The board no longer really functions as a discussion of general politics TBF - just a bore off about stopping Islam whilst not letting the government hack your emails.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Or incorrect statements that we have reached "Peak Kipper"
Kipper polling ave : Jan < Dec < Nov < Oct < Sep
or people dodging bets they would have lost...
Ah remember those bygone days when UKIP doing well in the polls was greeted by "But you haven't got any seats in Westminster"? Now UKIP holding steady at an all time high is mocked...
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead. .
I know. Totally agree and was going to say something earlier but it's too wearying. I know events have been huge but it would be quite nice to focus on non-Muslim domestic politics instead of the usual rants. It's putting me right off this site.
So, Lord Ashcroft's poll is at 4pm I believe? Do we have a previous poll by which to check trends (which is important), or is this wholly new?
The last Lord Ashcroft poll was on the 7th of December it was Ashcroft National Poll: Con 30%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 8%, UKIP 19%, Green 5%
Thanks TSE, much appreciated. I didn't realise todays 's a national.
I'm still I think wanting to hold for fieldwork the first week of February to start to see which way the wind is blowing.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 18s18 seconds ago Very first Sunil ELBOW for 2015: Lab 33.3 (-0.9), Con 32.5 (+0.9), UKIP 14.5 (-0.9), LD 7.7 (+0.2), Green 6.4 (+0.4)
Douglas Carswell on the Daily Politics now pointing out UKIP would spend £9bn less pa on Overseas Aid... Farage must have a sniper in the studio pointing a gun at his head eh?
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead.
I'm going to conclude that Ed isn't crap enough to motivate anybody to change their opinion, and the people who like Labour are going to vote Labour.
Its more indicative of how much some posters are obsessed with non white non Christian people.
The board no longer really functions as a discussion of general politics TBF - just a bore off about stopping Islam whilst not letting the government hack your emails.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
You've got us. How absurd it is to talk about violence in Islam. It's not like there's been anything major related to that in the news that could affect politics.
Douglas Carswell on the Daily Politics now pointing out UKIP would spend £9bn less pa on Overseas Aid... Farage must have a sniper in the studio pointing a gun at his head eh?
Yuck. Carswell's been Faraged...
I am sure he didn't mean it.. perhaps Nige had Dougie's wife and kids tied up at UKIP HQ until he left the BBC studio having read the script?
Just to add that I think an enlightened society would take an enquiring approach to Jesus Christ's sex life too, or any other religious idol.
There difference being that sort of debate wouldn't raise many eyebrows, and you would probably find even senior churchmen joining in under the right circumstances. Witness the pummeling Archbishop John Onaiyekan took from Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry on the IQ2 Catholicism debate, true it wasn't about Jesus' sexuality, but it do go into the foible of priests and church policy about sexuality in a pretty abrasive fashion, hard to see that happening with a "less tolerant" religion.
Interesting that we have a thread based explicitly on the idea that Ed Is Crap, and everybody's talking about Muslims instead.
I'm going to conclude that Ed isn't crap enough to motivate anybody to change their opinion, and the people who like Labour are going to vote Labour.
Its more indicative of how much some posters are obsessed with non white non Christian people.
The board no longer really functions as a discussion of general politics TBF - just a bore off about stopping Islam whilst not letting the government hack your emails.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
You've got us. How absurd it is to talk about violence in Islam. It's not like there's been anything major related to that in the news that could affect politics.
No but you've been droning on about this for months day-in, day-out and it's frankly a complete bore.
Douglas Carswell on the Daily Politics now pointing out UKIP would spend £9bn less pa on Overseas Aid... Farage must have a sniper in the studio pointing a gun at his head eh?
Yuck. Carswell's been Faraged...
I am sure he didn't mean it.. perhaps Nige had Dougie's wife and kids tied up at UKIP HQ until he left the BBC studio having read the script?
Or possibly he has been tweeting and writing about this policy since last year
David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign, saying they will be the deficit, jobs, taxes, education, housing and retirement.
Source: The Times
Christopher Hope @christopherhope 4m4 minutes ago Tories will take public spending back to 2002 levels. "The world did not fall in then and it won't now", says David Cameron #GE2015
How many more extra people in this country since 2002 Mr Cameron for even less services.
BBC reporter faces calls to resign after he tells daughter of Holocaust survivors after Paris attacks: 'Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'
One thing about this debate - it is definitely not along left/right traditional bounds - different views and voices from all parts of the political spectrum.
We hear a lot of this "Peak Kipper" stuff on here from the usual suspects, and although for a long while I thought it was harmless, if inaccurate, trolling, it seems they actually believe it...
So why don't we have a little bet?
"Peak Kipper" with YouGov is 19% I believe
People seem to think we have reached peak kipper, so is it fair to say I will take Evens that UKIP will reach 19% with UKIP before the election, and anyone wanting the other side (UKIP will not reach 19% with YouGov again before the election) get EVENS?
Anyone wanting the bet I will have it minimum stake 1p, no max
BBC reporter faces calls to resign after he tells daughter of Holocaust survivors after Paris attacks: 'Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'
David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign, saying they will be the deficit, jobs, taxes, education, housing and retirement.
Source: The Times
Christopher Hope @christopherhope 4m4 minutes ago Tories will take public spending back to 2002 levels. "The world did not fall in then and it won't now", says David Cameron #GE2015
How many more extra people in this country since 2002 Mr Cameron for even less services.
You mean all the new people aren't working hard here and contributing to the economy - or are they just more scroungers who you want us to pay for?
That has to be one of the most pointless reasons for staying in. The man's an utter tool.
It doesn't even make sense.
The EU is looking to tighten external border controls to stop Islamists returning from Iraq and Syria undetected. If we left the EU we in particular could have very tight control over our borders and who is allowed to enter and remain resident.
EU countries already cooperate with a lot of other countries to fight terrorism, so leaving the EU wouldn't end that, and our most important partner in this area is not the EU but the USA. The EU as a whole is quite far down the list of partners we work with when it comes to counter-terrorism and intelligence, as we don't trust all members equally.
And you like doing that too. I hope someone is keeping a spreadsheet of all these pb bets you throw out.
I don't think UKIP will go above 19% in the run-in, although they might before the campaign proper kicks off late Feb/March, but I'll stick to my one bet with you about LibDems seats. That's a banker for me
'More seriously, the three Britain-wide party leaders agreed to give Holyrood extra powers if Scotland voted No – famously set out on the front page of the Daily Record two days before the referendum. Both sides in the campaign agreed that YouGov’s poll was a game-changer. Cameron even admitted losing his cool. When he didn’t realise he was being overheard, he told New York’s former Mayor, Michael Bloomberg: “I want to find these polling companies and I want to sue them for my stomach ulcers because of what they put me through.” If that’s how you feel, Dave, go ahead and sue. I’ll see you in court. What’s interesting about Cameron’s remarks is that he is blaming the wrong target. YouGov didn’t invent the neck-and-neck figures. We were simply measuring the state of Scottish opinion. The real drama was happening not inside our computers, but on the streets and in the homes of Glasgow, Dundee and other cities, towns and villages across Scotland. Cameron’s response – and Miliband’s and Clegg’s – should not have been to lose their nerve, but calmly to understand why the No lead had collapsed. YouGov’s poll contained plenty of clues. Scottish voters, and women in particular, were becoming less afraid of independence. More believed Alex Salmond’s assurances that all would be well. Indeed, Salmond had persuaded a number of Scots that Scotland’s NHS might suffer if No won and the Tories stayed in power in London. The conclusion sensible London leaders should have drawn was: keep calm. Stress the positive case for the union; don’t just rely on scare tactics. There is no need to give away big extra powers – show that the 1997 devolution settlement gave Scots the best of both worlds.'
Yep, like completely reversing their strategy to a positive one 10 days before the referendum wouldn't have been a sign of panic.
David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign David Cameron will today launch the six key themes of the Conservative Party’s election campaign, saying they will be the deficit, jobs, taxes, education, housing and retirement.
Source: The Times
Christopher Hope @christopherhope 4m4 minutes ago Tories will take public spending back to 2002 levels. "The world did not fall in then and it won't now", says David Cameron #GE2015
How many more extra people in this country since 2002 Mr Cameron for even less services.
Was he talking cash terms or percent of GDP? Probably the latter. Number of bodies not important.
And you like doing that too. I hope someone is keeping a spreadsheet of all these pb bets you throw out.
I don't think UKIP will go above 19% in the run-in, although they might before the campaign proper kicks off late Feb/March, but I'll stick to my one bet with you about LibDems seats. That's a banker for me
Yes I have a spreadsheet with them all on cheers
I don't like your insinuations that I wont pay or will disappear after the GE by the way.. I have paid promptly any bet I lost to a PBer as several will testify!
I will stay here under my own name, I wont do the cowardly act of leaving then returning under a new one
Isam, good good glad to hear it. Unfortunately that has happened a few times on here with some freestyle betting during the run-up only to find they go off-piste on race day, never to be seen again.
You reckon UKIP will win 9 seats? Actually, how many do you forecast.
Comments
Do you need to know about germs to use the spores of the giant puffball on a wound to stop it becoming infected?
The Byzantine empire doesn't really count as an Islamic achievement because it was established by the Romans and taken over. You have to look pretty hard for comparable empires set up from scratch.
For me the interesting thing is how, given Islam's technophobia, its fundamentalist adherents got comfortable with using things like phones and computers. Surely these are just witchcraft not described in the Kerrang, and people should be killed for using them?
The Clarkson School of Cultural Studies.
And yes, I think that the first and third comments should be and probably are illegal (the middle one is arguably a prediction rather than an incitement, like saying "Sinners will go to hell", which I'd see as a legal statement of opinion). Knowing your style, I suspect they are actually statements by radical imams and you've changed the words? But I'd say the same whoever said them.
@GuidoFawkes: Labour's brilliant election strategist @LucyMPowell can't even get her own leaflet right: http://t.co/nTTGhc1tcN
"Our police is not weaponised"
Maybe they should ask Ed for some tips
Why? Well the Chinese also built the Great Wall and viewed foreigners as inferiors so they had nothing to learn from them. So they stopped innovating : there was no perceived need and no new frontiers to conquer.
See also the Japanese.
What else is moral relativism than saying slavery was moral then and is immoral now? You're openly arguing for moral relativism.
For what it's worth, I think you can say that people looking some places and some times can have a 'better' view than others. The more knowledge you accumulate, the more you allow people to express different opinions, and the more you go out of your way to hear them and be open to them, the more likely you are to have a better view. This is the reason I support free speech and vigorous argument so much.
Now, that is not so.
Yet we have a cut-off for what we define as a person. In years to come, medical science could potentially save many of those "non-persons" and we might look back and say .. "they killed them because they were inconvenient - what bastards they were."
I'm not advocating we ban abortion, by the way, just pointing out that judging people on modern morals is pointless.
Miliband is a novice who has no groundswell of popularity in any part of the country or among any group. He isn't popular with the young, the old, the rich, the poor, the English, the Scots. He's a dud.
He lost the Euros, which only a routed Kinnock against Peak Thatcher had previously managed to do.
The elections since 2013 tell us much more than the opinion polls.
Labour will do well in the North (especially nw) and ethnic urban areas, but get slaughtered in small town England and across Scotland.
The areas they do well in, they will still do less well than they would with a different leader.
The information is there in the by-elections, the council elections, the euros, the indyref.
That said, in the early medieval the great Islamic cities (e.g. Cordoba, Bukhara, Samarkand) put their European counterparts to shame.
I'm going to conclude that Ed isn't crap enough to motivate anybody to change their opinion, and the people who like Labour are going to vote Labour.
James Cleverly (previously shortlisted in Bury St Edmunds and Bexhill & Battle)
Michael McManus (previously shortlisted in Havant)
Suella Fernandes (previously shortlisted in Croydon South, Uxbridge and Bexhill & Battle)
Sarah Macken (previously shortlisted in Louth and Hornecastle)
Or not turn up at all, which is what tends to happen whenever there's a real election since 2014.
http://www.capx.co/dont-ban-strikes-sack-strikers/
He's a top bloke, this has nothing to do with the fact he once called Simon Hughes a dick
The tragedy of Japan in the mid-17th century is that it self-imposed an end to its advancement purely because of an autocratic overreaction to Western trade and missionaires. (Which is not to say the next 250 years did not throw up a few geniuses -- Hokusai and Chikamatsu, for instance.)
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/554613709457592320
The people who conquered the Western Roman Empire had a far more devastating effect on civilisation.
A lot of the knowledge was stored in the Great Library of Alexandria. Find out who did what to it and why.
The Muslim Empire had a lot of accomplishments but they had a massive liking for slaves. At one time, Christian boys were forced to convert and made into a fighting force of slaves (The Janissaries).
We queue up to complain about enslavement of Africans by Westerners but the Arabs were the past masters.
Different times indeed but if ISIS aren't stopped ...
If you ask me comment of the day so far to Mr Nabavi
I don't believe that Muslims should be required to reject aspects of Islam in order to be allowed to live here. I think we should prevent those that believe in conservative interpretations of Islam (about ~40% or so of Muslims, but still) to immigrate here, and I believe those that have such opinions who are already here should be vigorously argued against. The latter is just free and democratic debate, while the former is the same level as requiring an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
The age of consent in Spain is 16.
I would agree that an interest in the sexual acts of Mohammed would be unreasonable as a historical figure, but he is not just a historical figure is he? He is someone whose every word is held up as a perfect truth by one in twenty Britons. Therefore it's entirely legitimate to truly scrutinise his moral behaviour. Left wing people are very happy to apply scrutiny to Churchill's arguments about gassing the Kurds in the 1920s. Why is Mohammed suddenly off-limits for actual actions he carried out? It's pure ideological bias. You got me that they weren't actual Daily Mail comments. Here are the actual quotes:
“God’s curse be upon the infidels! Evil is that for which they have bartered away their souls."
“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another…”
"Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.”
“Believers, know that the idolaters are unclean."
“Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron."
“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.”
“The unbelievers among the People of the Bible and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.”
I'm sure radical imams have said them, but I'm quoting them from the Koran. It's good to know that you think such material should be illegal. Or is this a special case of 'non-radical' Muslims getting an opt-out again?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11337056/Charlie-Hebdo-terror-mentors-wife-on-benefits-in-Leicester.html
Will Ed Miliband support banning those connected with terrorism or even those with terrorist convictions from moving here from the EU?
EDIT: I also like how when Nigel Farage mentions the failures of multiculturalism when discussing French citizens attacking their own country, he is "politicising" the issue, but Miliband is quite happy to bring the EU into the mix.
So, Lord Ashcroft's poll is at 4pm I believe? Do we have a previous poll by which to check trends (which is important), or is this wholly new?
I paraphrased a bit.
"A lot of the knowledge was stored in the Great Library of Alexandria. Find out who did what to it and why"
Well, the Muslim conquerors of 641AD did, supposedly, have good go, "if it is in the Koran it is duplication and if it isn't it is blasphemy". I say supposedly because the are good reasons to doubt the veracity of that story.
There are also other candidates for the destruction of the Library, not least by the Christians during the tail end of the fourth century AD.
I'm trying to think of a single thing that man has ever said or done that I agree with.
Perhaps telling Murdoch to get lost. Maybe that.
Those weren't commands telling all members of the religion to go out and do such things. That's the difference where "incitement" comes in.
It seems the left are quite happy to stand up for your right to criticise and satirise islam, as long as you don;t actually do this.
Once the criticism actually starts, debate is immediately shut down.
The left is the real fifth column. They are doing the terrorists work for them.
It was the monks who preserved much of Western thought. Also I think people really underappreciate the magnificence of medieval Cathedrals, phenominal achievements.
Carn: Ah, I see now. I thought you were talking about Westminster (where Mr M is a more important figure), but the 2011 majority was for Holyrood, and hitherto the two VIs have been very different in Scotland.
The issue here seems to be that the Westminster VI has suddenly been made almost the same as the Holyrood VI, i.e. tactical voting for Labour to keep the Tories out has transferred to SNP and/or been abandoned and/or many voters have deserted Labour full stop. (HYUFD's point re reverse tactical voting by Tories and LDs and other Unionists stands, of course.)
That change in Westminster VI actually took place at indyref - Mr Numbercruncher had a nice graph of this recently on PB IIRC - which is well after - as you say - Mr M became Leader of the Opposition. How and why this happened is not entirely clear to me - indyref obviously had something to do with it - but it may very well be that having Mr M in charge of Labour is a necessary - but not sufficient - condition for the Westminster VI change. And perhaps for the 2011 change, though that was focussed far more on the Scottish party leaders such as Ian Gray and I'm not sure Mr M played much role there.
My thanks to all for an interesting mornings conversation.
"Super-ELBOW" of all polls with field-work end-date 1st Dec to Xmas. Lab 33.7, Con 32.0, UKIP 15.5, LD 7.4, Green 6.0
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/554618727518728193
The board no longer really functions as a discussion of general politics TBF - just a bore off about stopping Islam whilst not letting the government hack your emails.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
He is doing his "positive" bit.
(Joking aside, the people who mocked Elijah do sound rather like a lynch mob).
I might be wrong, but I think people might also object be being blown up or shot by even white non-christian people, possibly even white christian people. However living in the UK the first is rather less likely, and the second so small as to be almost non-existent, although that wasn't always the case clearly.
Kipper polling ave : Jan < Dec < Nov < Oct < Sep
Ah remember those bygone days when UKIP doing well in the polls was greeted by "But you haven't got any seats in Westminster"? Now UKIP holding steady at an all time high is mocked...
Poor, desperate you!
I'm still I think wanting to hold for fieldwork the first week of February to start to see which way the wind is blowing.
Very first Sunil ELBOW for 2015: Lab 33.3 (-0.9), Con 32.5 (+0.9), UKIP 14.5 (-0.9), LD 7.7 (+0.2), Green 6.4 (+0.4)
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/554623413676175360
I never thought I'd say this, but Yasmin has written something very good here.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ukip-mp-says-party-slash-154900825.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906539/Calls-BBC-reporter-resign-told-daughter-Holocaust-survivors-Paris-Palestinians-suffer-hugely-Jewish-hands-well.html
So why don't we have a little bet?
"Peak Kipper" with YouGov is 19% I believe
People seem to think we have reached peak kipper, so is it fair to say I will take Evens that UKIP will reach 19% with UKIP before the election, and anyone wanting the other side (UKIP will not reach 19% with YouGov again before the election) get EVENS?
Anyone wanting the bet I will have it minimum stake 1p, no max
The EU is looking to tighten external border controls to stop Islamists returning from Iraq and Syria undetected. If we left the EU we in particular could have very tight control over our borders and who is allowed to enter and remain resident.
EU countries already cooperate with a lot of other countries to fight terrorism, so leaving the EU wouldn't end that, and our most important partner in this area is not the EU but the USA. The EU as a whole is quite far down the list of partners we work with when it comes to counter-terrorism and intelligence, as we don't trust all members equally.
I don't think UKIP will go above 19% in the run-in, although they might before the campaign proper kicks off late Feb/March, but I'll stick to my one bet with you about LibDems seats. That's a banker for me
Piece from Kellner on polling, a little disingenuous I think.
http://tinyurl.com/lozhcmk
This bit in particular is bollox.
'More seriously, the three Britain-wide party leaders agreed to give Holyrood extra powers if Scotland voted No – famously set out on the front page of the Daily Record two days before the referendum. Both sides in the campaign agreed that YouGov’s poll was a game-changer. Cameron even admitted losing his cool. When he didn’t realise he was being overheard, he told New York’s former Mayor, Michael Bloomberg: “I want to find these polling companies and I want to sue them for my stomach ulcers because of what they put me through.”
If that’s how you feel, Dave, go ahead and sue. I’ll see you in court.
What’s interesting about Cameron’s remarks is that he is blaming the wrong target. YouGov didn’t invent the neck-and-neck figures. We were simply measuring the state of Scottish opinion. The real drama was happening not inside our computers, but on the streets and in the homes of Glasgow, Dundee and other cities, towns and villages across Scotland.
Cameron’s response – and Miliband’s and Clegg’s – should not have been to lose their nerve, but calmly to understand why the No lead had collapsed. YouGov’s poll contained plenty of clues. Scottish voters, and women in particular, were becoming less afraid of independence. More believed Alex Salmond’s assurances that all would be well. Indeed, Salmond had persuaded a number of Scots that Scotland’s NHS might suffer if No won and the Tories stayed in power in London.
The conclusion sensible London leaders should have drawn was: keep calm. Stress the positive case for the union; don’t just rely on scare tactics. There is no need to give away big extra powers – show that the 1997 devolution settlement gave Scots the best of both worlds.'
Yep, like completely reversing their strategy to a positive one 10 days before the referendum wouldn't have been a sign of panic.
It would have been better and more accurate to say 'Israeli' rather than 'Jewish'
You may want to rephrase your terms.
I don't like your insinuations that I wont pay or will disappear after the GE by the way.. I have paid promptly any bet I lost to a PBer as several will testify!
I will stay here under my own name, I wont do the cowardly act of leaving then returning under a new one
Current Sporting Index seat mid points
Lib Dem 28
UKIP 9
How's your maths?
@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 37 (+3), Con 32 (-1), LD 10 (+2), UKIP 13 (-1), Oth 8 (-3). Tables here: http://t.co/BL98r2QdK9
Isam, good good glad to hear it. Unfortunately that has happened a few times on here with some freestyle betting during the run-up only to find they go off-piste on race day, never to be seen again.
You reckon UKIP will win 9 seats? Actually, how many do you forecast.