Wagering on politics never really appealed to me but I was inspired by this site to open a Sporting Index account and bought the SNP at 21 seats a month or two back. I could now trade in at 29 and make a very handsome gain. I can't see myself backing against a party and I don't know enough about English constituencies to make a sensible wager.
I have never tried constituency betting because the seats that are near certain wins for the SNP eg Gordon are at prohibitively short prices. I wonder , however , if these are tactics that could be followed.
One the current swing Labour to SNP (and Lib to SNP is 20 per cent). Consider for backing any seat that requires a swing of say 15 per cent, leaving yourself a margin of comfort.
Two and this is the one I like. The present opinion polls for Westminster look not unlike the Scottish parliament election of 2011 - slightly better for the SNP, slightly worse for Labour. The near equivalent seats which fell comfortably that night in 2011 look good to me. For example Linlithgow would be in that category where the SNP are a decent price.
"Workers would be "choking on their cornflakes" after PM urged firms to give pay rises with windfalls from cheaper oil, says Ed Miliband". Beeb ticker. Personally I'd steer clear of breakfast-eating-malfunction metaphors after the bacon sandwich incident.
Isam "But I will make my point again. If the the jewish community that you speak of were to be 5% of the uk population, I have little doubt that the conflict between them and the rest of the country would increase to Islamic proportions. It is all about the numbers".
Off the top of my head, Christians represent over 5% of the population in Syria, Egypt, Iraq (until recently), Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Not to mention lots of countries dominated by other religions (Sri Lanka etc). But I don't recall reading about any terrorist threat from them
Because they are an established minority and have learned over a long period of time to live among the majority...
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
For PB Tories (including the writer of this execrable article whose ideologically partisan tenor and narrow-minded assumptions do not seem at home on this blog) it would appear that the main problem is the seeming inability to imagine any world other than one in which a tiny minority of feral rich continue to concentrate wealth and resources ad infinitum whilst the living standards of the middle classes are left to collapse. There is no question where 'there is no alternative' is not the answer. And they wonder why this worldview is about as popular as Ebola.
Another risible Labour shill crawls out the woodwork. I guess we should expect a plague of them until May....
LOL, another example shows how nasty Tories really are , vile twisted bitter nasty c****
It still hurts doesn't it, being told by a southern turnip how you would fail to get Independence - and why.
We feel your pain. It gives us turnips a good laugh, knowing we have a better handle on the Scottish mind-set than you.
The only handle you had was on the cash to bribe people. Will not be so lucky next time.
Lol. You couldn't win with oil at the top of the market. You'll have no chance next time.
Thanks MD, i've been reading the site for years (and used to comment under another handle many moons ago), but only recently had the desire to set-up a vanilla account.
For PB Tories (including the writer of this execrable article whose ideologically partisan tenor and narrow-minded assumptions do not seem at home on this blog)
David is one of the blogs most regular and most appreciated writers and commentators
Thanks, though I'm not that bothered about 'JWisemann's comment, coming as it does without a shred of supporting argument. But it's long been a tenet of political debate that if you're incapable of challenging the argument, throw abuse instead.
Isam "But I will make my point again. If the the jewish community that you speak of were to be 5% of the uk population, I have little doubt that the conflict between them and the rest of the country would increase to Islamic proportions. It is all about the numbers".
Off the top of my head, Christians represent over 5% of the population in Syria, Egypt, Iraq (until recently), Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Not to mention lots of countries dominated by other religions (Sri Lanka etc). But I don't recall reading about any terrorist threat from them
Because they are an established minority and have learned over a long period of time to live among the majority...
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
Now you are reaching.
Australians vs Indigenous Australians ? At the time the incomers started repressing the native australians they already outnumbered them by 5 or 6 to one.
Mr. Charles, reminds me of a theory, think it was by Roy F. Baumeister, that, collectively, men have a flatter normal curve with higher extremities, and women have a bit more of a spike in the middle. In other words, men vary more and are likelier to be atrocious or amazing, whereas women vary less and are more reliable.
I mentioned it (years ago now) on another site. Many of the women who replied had no problem agreeing men were likelier to be rapists, murderers, generally violent, stupid or have learning disabilities, but were angered and utterly disagreed with the notion men were likelier to be geniuses, heroic or amazing leaders.
When we see prison populations have more than 10 men for every woman everyone agrees men are just more violent. When we see FTSE 100 boards being dominated by men, there's a consensus that's sexism preventing women reaching their full potential.
The same thing happened with education when boys did better it was because the exams were wrong (so they changed from one-off massive exams to modular examinations and much coursework). Girls did better, and that's because boys are less intelligent. Apparently.
My wife's an EP and she concurs that more men are better and worse than women. It looks like women only want to see the worse in men and fail to accept their brilliance.
In education it is different - the pedagogy (ok style) is geared towards women in that the teaching is excessively verbal ( a strength of women if you hadn't noticed) and is overwhelmingly taught my women.
In my youth I used to be given dozens of problems in maths to solve so that the fundamental principles of addition/ subtraction/ multiplication and division were hard-wired in my brain. Now, instead of getting 3 X 4 = ?, 4 X 5 = ? 91 / 13 = ? etc you get questions like.
Alice goes to the shops and buys 3 apples. She meets Betty on the way home and find out that she has bought 2 apples. How many apples do they have altogether?
Which engages totally different areas of the brain - mainly the language one (Left hemisphere) which then has to transfer the information over to the right hemisphere to process the actual mathematics. This transfer is done via the corpus callosum, which is much more complex in women.
So at the end of the day you find that 2/3 of girls are above average and 2/3 of boys are below average.
There is also the problem that most language these days is done by phonics/ word building rather than the whole-word approach. Again word building is left-hemispherical, whereas whole-words is right-hemisphere. And here's the rub. Boys do not transfer processing into the left hemisphere well until they are about 7 (8 or 9 if they have neurological immaturities) whereas girls transfer at about 4.5 - 5. Thus girls have two years being taught 'correctly' but for boys it is two years of torture. Are we surprised that many give up thinking they are failures.
Mr. Charles, reminds me of a theory, think it was by Roy F. Baumeister, that, collectively, men have a flatter normal curve with higher extremities, and women have a bit more of a spike in the middle. In other words, men vary more and are likelier to be atrocious or amazing, whereas women vary less and are more reliable.
I mentioned it (years ago now) on another site. Many of the women who replied had no problem agreeing men were likelier to be rapists, murderers, generally violent, stupid or have learning disabilities, but were angered and utterly disagreed with the notion men were likelier to be geniuses, heroic or amazing leaders.
When we see prison populations have more than 10 men for every woman everyone agrees men are just more violent. When we see FTSE 100 boards being dominated by men, there's a consensus that's sexism preventing women reaching their full potential.
The same thing happened with education when boys did better it was because the exams were wrong (so they changed from one-off massive exams to modular examinations and much coursework). Girls did better, and that's because boys are less intelligent. Apparently.
It was Camille Paglia I believe who said: "Why is there no female Jack The Ripper? For the same reason there is no female Mozart..."
For PB Tories (including the writer of this execrable article whose ideologically partisan tenor and narrow-minded assumptions do not seem at home on this blog) it would appear that the main problem is the seeming inability to imagine any world other than one in which a tiny minority of feral rich continue to concentrate wealth and resources ad infinitum whilst the living standards of the middle classes are left to collapse. There is no question where 'there is no alternative' is not the answer. And they wonder why this worldview is about as popular as Ebola.
Another risible Labour shill crawls out the woodwork. I guess we should expect a plague of them until May....
LOL, another example shows how nasty Tories really are , vile twisted bitter nasty c****
It still hurts doesn't it, being told by a southern turnip how you would fail to get Independence - and why.
We feel your pain. It gives us turnips a good laugh, knowing we have a better handle on the Scottish mind-set than you.
The only handle you had was on the cash to bribe people. Will not be so lucky next time.
Lol. You couldn't win with oil at the top of the market. You'll have no chance next time.
Another sneering Tory, the fan boys on here are in top nasty form today, will not be so smug in May mind you, beaten by a loser. I wonder who will be calling the shots.
Indeed. Niger is 99% islam, the muslims runs the country, and the Christian population has been there for almost a century. Not sure where this leaves Isam's hypothesis ;-)
Incidentally the worst place in the world for persecuting Christians outside of North Korea is Somalia (also the world capital of FGM), we currently have over 100k Somali refugees in the UK, half of which have had their asylum turned down, and basically disappeared into the country... the next is Syria....
Isam "But I will make my point again. If the the jewish community that you speak of were to be 5% of the uk population, I have little doubt that the conflict between them and the rest of the country would increase to Islamic proportions. It is all about the numbers".
Off the top of my head, Christians represent over 5% of the population in Syria, Egypt, Iraq (until recently), Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Not to mention lots of countries dominated by other religions (Sri Lanka etc). But I don't recall reading about any terrorist threat from them
Because they are an established minority and have learned over a long period of time to live among the majority...
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
Now you are reaching.
Australians vs Indigenous Australians ? At the time the incomers started repressing the native australians they already outnumbered them by 5 or 6 to one.
"Indigenous" nicer than "Aboriginee"is it? Try calling white Brits "indigenous" and see where it gets you!
You can blame the teacjings of Islam if you like, we aren't going to agree. My opinion is that if Islam were the dominant religion in the establishment/richest countries in the world and Christian immigrants were flocking to them en masse we would be seeing the same arguments about the bible/Christianity from muslims who couldn't understand why a fraction on Christians were engaging in terrorism
A new study shows that hostility towards other out-groups is not an isolated phenomenon among Muslims living in Europe; but nor is it a synonym of violence.
""Broadly speaking, between 40% and 45% of European Muslims have fundamentalist religious ideas"
According to the study, Islamic fundamentalism, also known as Islam, prevails in Europe if compared to Christian fundamentalism, in which only 4% of Christians shared the ideas of the three statements of the definition.
Of course, I've been saying the same for years, and came to very similar numbers based on perusing opinion polls. I wonder if people will listen to the evidence when it comes in the form of a polite academic study.
Indeed. Niger is 99% islam, the muslims runs the country, and the Christian population has been there for almost a century. Not sure where this leaves Isam's hypothesis ;-)
Incidentally the worst place in the world for persecuting Christians outside of North Korea is Somalia (also the world capital of FGM), we currently have over 100k Somali refugees in the UK, half of which have had their asylum turned down, and basically disappeared into the country... the next is Syria....
It doesnt alter it at all
There isnt "Civil War" in Niger there is an oppressive government, it seems. I am not saying everywhere that has a dominant culture will be a Utopia, but that where there is a fast growing significant minority there will be trouble
David Herdson sums up the two headed monster that Labour have attempted to ride. Those that do not learn the lessons of history (from Foot and Benn) are doomed to repeat them.
Isam "But I will make my point again. If the the jewish community that you speak of were to be 5% of the uk population, I have little doubt that the conflict between them and the rest of the country would increase to Islamic proportions. It is all about the numbers".
Off the top of my head, Christians represent over 5% of the population in Syria, Egypt, Iraq (until recently), Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Not to mention lots of countries dominated by other religions (Sri Lanka etc). But I don't recall reading about any terrorist threat from them
Because they are an established minority and have learned over a long period of time to live among the majority...
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
Now you are reaching.
Australians vs Indigenous Australians ? At the time the incomers started repressing the native australians they already outnumbered them by 5 or 6 to one.
"Indigenous" nicer than "Aboriginee"is it? Try calling white Brits "indigenous" and see where it gets you!
You can blame the teacjings of Islam if you like, we aren't going to agree. My opinion is that if Islam were the dominant religion in the establishment/richest countries in the world and Christian immigrants were flocking to them en masse we would be seeing the same arguments about the bible/Christianity from muslims who couldn't understand why a fraction on Christians were engaging in terrorism
iSam or JihadiSam?
But seriously - do Christians find pix of Jesus "offensive"?
Isam "But I will make my point again. If the the jewish community that you speak of were to be 5% of the uk population, I have little doubt that the conflict between them and the rest of the country would increase to Islamic proportions. It is all about the numbers".
Off the top of my head, Christians represent over 5% of the population in Syria, Egypt, Iraq (until recently), Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Not to mention lots of countries dominated by other religions (Sri Lanka etc). But I don't recall reading about any terrorist threat from them
Because they are an established minority and have learned over a long period of time to live among the majority...
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
Now you are reaching.
Australians vs Indigenous Australians ? At the time the incomers started repressing the native australians they already outnumbered them by 5 or 6 to one.
"Indigenous" nicer than "Aboriginee"is it? Try calling white Brits "indigenous" and see where it gets you!
Indeed. Niger is 99% islam, the muslims runs the country, and the Christian population has been there for almost a century. Not sure where this leaves Isam's hypothesis ;-)
Incidentally the worst place in the world for persecuting Christians outside of North Korea is Somalia (also the world capital of FGM), we currently have over 100k Somali refugees in the UK, half of which have had their asylum turned down, and basically disappeared into the country... the next is Syria....
It doesnt alter it at all
There isnt "Civil War" in Niger there is an oppressive government
Hell, talk about moving the goal posts, there isnt a civil war in the UK either last time I looked.
With reference to Morris_Dancer's assessment of men and women I think a comparison with professional sport can be made.
A subject that comes up quite regularly is the lack of black managers in English football. The theory goes that almost all managers are ex-players and as many of the players are black a fair share of the managers should be black too. In the US there is the Rooney Rule that stipulates that when a Head Coach vacancy comes up in the NFL then at least one minority candidate should be interviewed. Some think we should introduce something similar in this country.
Managers and head coaches are much like other jobs. It's quite difficult to tell who is any good so the left can argue that black players are being discriminated against by chairman.
But with the players, it's a different matter. Most wide receivers and running backs in the NFL are black. And that's simply because they are more likely to have the qualities required to excel in those positions. Most of the quarter backs - the most prestigious position in the game - are white.
Now there are some out there who believe white quarter backs are desirable from a marketing perspective and the game can't allow it to be completely dominated by black players. Such opinions are nonsense. In Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski's book Soccernomics they chart the history of black players in English football. They explain that pound for pound the teams that started to introduce black players to the game performed better than those who resisted.
Given what's at stake in the NFL (money, pride, etc.), if black players were better at QB you can bet that they'd be dominating the position. The reason they aren't is that they are simply less likely to be as good as white QBs (certainly in the NFL, I believe things are different in the College game where athletic ability is more important for the QB).
Now I'm very confident in stating that white players are more likely to be better at QB. I'm far less certain of saying the same about football managers or FTSE 100 directors. But if it's possible that in sport different people are suited to different jobs, then it's likely to be true in other walks of life.
Ultimately, though, the left can't stand the thought that ability might be correlated with things such as sex and race.
Not a big vote winner for the non baby boomers who aren't eligible. Just another example of the Government featherbedding the past while it whips the present.
Yes. And a sale of £5 notes for £4 each to the over-65s, or any other segment of society, would also be "hugely successful".
Edit to add: you could actually arb the 4% bond by borrowing from M&S bank or Zopa at 3.6/3.7% to buy it. So it really is free money.
My current rates for people lending money via Ratesetter are:- 1 month Market 2.9% 1 year 3.5% 3 year 4.7%. Not quite as safe as the government bond, but the government don't know you are lending the money, interest taxable but paid tax free. So not a massive vote winner anyway.
Isam "But I will make my point again. If the the jewish community that you speak of were to be 5% of the uk population, I have little doubt that the conflict between them and the rest of the country would increase to Islamic proportions. It is all about the numbers".
Off the top of my head, Christians represent over 5% of the population in Syria, Egypt, Iraq (until recently), Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Not to mention lots of countries dominated by other religions (Sri Lanka etc). But I don't recall reading about any terrorist threat from them
Because they are an established minority and have learned over a long period of time to live among the majority...
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
So where is the Terrorism by Sikhs in the UK (there is some in India relating to separatism) or Hindus? Or Buddhists? Or Polish and Lithuanians?
I think Islamism is particularly prone to Terrorism for several interlocking reasons:
a) The sanction of Mohammed and his followers for using the sword to resolve disputes, something much less sanctioned by other religions.
b) The coercive misogyny of Islamists that opposes the education of women, and thereby the restraining effect of women on political discourse.
c) Islams close correlation with economic failure, which creates both a need for Muslims to emigrate, and also causes them to function much worse than immigrants from other countries in their new homes. This sets up a lot of cognitive dissonance, with the supposed superiority of the Muslim over Kuffar exposed as a lie, as Kuffar are transparently more successful socially and economically. This breeds resentment, but also a lot of young men with time on their hands, for which the devil makes work.
I do need to head off now, as I have to watch Leicester City's new Balkan immigrant score a hat trick against Stoke!
Indeed. Niger is 99% islam, the muslims runs the country, and the Christian population has been there for almost a century. Not sure where this leaves Isam's hypothesis ;-)
Incidentally the worst place in the world for persecuting Christians outside of North Korea is Somalia (also the world capital of FGM), we currently have over 100k Somali refugees in the UK, half of which have had their asylum turned down, and basically disappeared into the country... the next is Syria....
It doesnt alter it at all
There isnt "Civil War" in Niger there is an oppressive government
Hell, talk about moving the goal posts, there isnt a civil war in the UK either last time I looked.
I am not moving the goalposts.
We have violence on the scale of civil war on our doorstep, and instances over the last decade of violence that is describable as acts of civil war
Basically you are saying its all the fault of muslims, except when its not
Isam "But I will make my point again. If the the jewish community that you speak of were to be 5% of the uk population, I have little doubt that the conflict between them and the rest of the country would increase to Islamic proportions. It is all about the numbers".
Off the top of my head, Christians represent over 5% of the population in Syria, Egypt, Iraq (until recently), Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Not to mention lots of countries dominated by other religions (Sri Lanka etc). But I don't recall reading about any terrorist threat from them
Because they are an established minority and have learned over a long period of time to live among the majority...
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
Now you are reaching.
Australians vs Indigenous Australians ? At the time the incomers started repressing the native australians they already outnumbered them by 5 or 6 to one.
"Indigenous" nicer than "Aboriginee"is it? Try calling white Brits "indigenous" and see where it gets you!
You can blame the teacjings of Islam if you like, we aren't going to agree. My opinion is that if Islam were the dominant religion in the establishment/richest countries in the world and Christian immigrants were flocking to them en masse we would be seeing the same arguments about the bible/Christianity from muslims who couldn't understand why a fraction on Christians were engaging in terrorism
iSam or JihadiSam?
But seriously - do Christians find pix of Jesus "offensive"?
I think if recent Christian immigrants were the significant & growing minority in an Islamic/Hindu/Buddhist/Jewish country, over time there would be tensions that would probably result in the formation of minority interest groups to protect then advance their rights
Some of those groups would then be offended by something they say is integral to their lives "AS christians/Europeans/whatever it is they define themselves as" and terrorism would follow
I think Ed and Ed can be both reassuring to the finial markets, and introduce a more progressive (left of centre) policy mix, if they reform and rebalance the tax system. One area in particular that doesn't get taxed proportionately is land. Council tax is highly regressive, and the Mansion tax is a clumsy attempt to correct this. far better would be to add more council tax bands, and revalue council tax as a whole (last done in 1991?). Better still, introduce a land value tax, and let the Dukes of Westminster and other big land owners contribute their share to the public revenue (we are all in this together, but some more than others). Labour should also think about merging NI and income tax.
Possible explanations for the high levels of religious fundamentalism and outgroup hostility among West European Muslims
• Socio-economic marginalization and exclusion? No: education and employment explain some of the variation within the Muslim and Christian groups, but not the large difference between the two religious groups
• Alienation and acculturation stress as a result of immigration? No: levels of fundamentalism and outgroup hostility among Muslim immigrants are very similar to those found in their countries of origin (see th e various Pew Research surveys)
• A lack of religious rights for Muslims in Western Europe? No: there is no clear correlation between the legal inclusion of Islam (see Carol & Koopmans in Ethnicities 2013) and fundamentalism and outgroup hostility.
• An inherent characteristic of Islam? No: while many Sunni Muslims do subscribe to fundamentalist ideas and are hostile towards outgroups, significant numbers of Sunni Muslims hold more liberal views. Moreover, Alevite Muslims have a quite similar view on religion as Christians.
So, it's nothing to do with Muslims experiences since immigrating here. It's simply the case that they are replicating the views of their community in their country of origin. The obvious conclusion is to stymy immigration from places with such views.
And for those that think we just need to give it time:
While young Christians are less fundamentalist and hostile to outgroups than older generations, this is not the case among Muslims.
Isam "But I will make my point again. If the the jewish community that you speak of were to be 5% of the uk population, I have little doubt that the conflict between them and the rest of the country would increase to Islamic proportions. It is all about the numbers".
Off the top of my head, Christians represent over 5% of the population in Syria, Egypt, Iraq (until recently), Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Not to mention lots of countries dominated by other religions (Sri Lanka etc). But I don't recall reading about any terrorist threat from them
Because they are an established minority and have learned over a long period of time to live among the majority...
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
So where is the Terrorism by Sikhs in the UK (there is some in India relating to separatism) or Hindus? Or Buddhists? Or Polish and Lithuanians?
I think Islamism is particularly prone to Terrorism for several interlocking reasons:
a) The sanction of Mohammed and his followers for using the sword to resolve disputes, something much less sanctioned by other religions.
b) The coercive misogyny of Islamists that opposes the education of women, and thereby the restraining effect of women on political discourse.
c) Islams close correlation with economic failure, which creates both a need for Muslims to emigrate, and also causes them to function much worse than immigrants from other countries in their new homes. This sets up a lot of cognitive dissonance, with the supposed superiority of the Muslim over Kuffar exposed as a lie, as Kuffar are transparently more successful socially and economically. This breeds resentment, but also a lot of young men with time on their hands, for which the devil makes work.
I do need to head off now, as I have to watch Leicester City's new Balkan immigrant score a hat trick against Stoke!
Not enough Buddhist Sikhs or Hindus in the uk for it to be a problem
Isam "But I will make my point again. If the the jewish community that you speak of were to be 5% of the uk population, I have little doubt that the conflict between them and the rest of the country would increase to Islamic proportions. It is all about the numbers".
Off the top of my head, Christians represent over 5% of the population in Syria, Egypt, Iraq (until recently), Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Not to mention lots of countries dominated by other religions (Sri Lanka etc). But I don't recall reading about any terrorist threat from them
Because they are an established minority and have learned over a long period of time to live among the majority...
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
Now you are reaching.
Australians vs Indigenous Australians ? At the time the incomers started repressing the native australians they already outnumbered them by 5 or 6 to one.
"Indigenous" nicer than "Aboriginee"is it? Try calling white Brits "indigenous" and see where it gets you!
Is Frank Dobson still living in his council flat by the way?
Yes.
Wikipedia:
Frank Dobson has been the subject of controversy for living in a council flat whilst on a six figure ministerial salary. He continues to live in it, despite owning a large property in Yorkshire. In an interview in July 2014, he responded to this criticism, saying: "I first lived there when we were subtenants of a subtenant of a private landlord. We were then sold to Camden council. What should I have done? Exercised the right to buy, which I voted against?"
We have bed blockers in hospitals and a "home blocker" Labour MP. Stealing a home from the more deserving.
If all the Muslims in the world became Hindu/Jewish/Sikh/AN Other overnight and vice versa, we would be in the same position as now with regards to extremism and terrorism
For PB Tories (including the writer of this execrable article whose ideologically partisan tenor and narrow-minded assumptions do not seem at home on this blog) it would appear that the main problem is the seeming inability to imagine any world other than one in which a tiny minority of feral rich continue to concentrate wealth and resources ad infinitum whilst the living standards of the middle classes are left to collapse. There is no question where 'there is no alternative' is not the answer. And they wonder why this worldview is about as popular as Ebola.
Another risible Labour shill crawls out the woodwork. I guess we should expect a plague of them until May....
LOL, another example shows how nasty Tories really are , vile twisted bitter nasty c****
It still hurts doesn't it, being told by a southern turnip how you would fail to get Independence - and why.
We feel your pain. It gives us turnips a good laugh, knowing we have a better handle on the Scottish mind-set than you.
The only handle you had was on the cash to bribe people. Will not be so lucky next time.
Lol. You couldn't win with oil at the top of the market. You'll have no chance next time.
This maybe the logical view but lefties lack economic logic and Scotland seems full of lefties sucking on the teat of state welfare, so I view independence as inevitable.
With reference to Morris_Dancer's assessment of men and women I think a comparison with professional sport can be made.
A subject that comes up quite regularly is the lack of black managers in English football. The theory goes that almost all managers are ex-players and as many of the players are black a fair share of the managers should be black too. In the US there is the Rooney Rule that stipulates that when a Head Coach vacancy comes up in the NFL then at least one minority candidate should be interviewed. Some think we should introduce something similar in this country.
Managers and head coaches are much like other jobs. It's quite difficult to tell who is any good so the left can argue that black players are being discriminated against by chairman.
But with the players, it's a different matter. Most wide receivers and running backs in the NFL are black. And that's simply because they are more likely to have the qualities required to excel in those positions. Most of the quarter backs - the most prestigious position in the game - are white.
Now there are some out there who believe white quarter backs are desirable from a marketing perspective and the game can't allow it to be completely dominated by black players. Such opinions are nonsense. In Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski's book Soccernomics they chart the history of black players in English football. They explain that pound for pound the teams that started to introduce black players to the game performed better than those who resisted.
Given what's at stake in the NFL (money, pride, etc.), if black players were better at QB you can bet that they'd be dominating the position. The reason they aren't is that they are simply less likely to be as good as white QBs (certainly in the NFL, I believe things are different in the College game where athletic ability is more important for the QB).
Now I'm very confident in stating that white players are more likely to be better at QB. I'm far less certain of saying the same about football managers or FTSE 100 directors. But if it's possible that in sport different people are suited to different jobs, then it's likely to be true in other walks of life.
Ultimately, though, the left can't stand the thought that ability might be correlated with things such as sex and race.
Maybe the left (and many others) can't stand the thought that people should be prejudged according to their sex or race?
Mr. Woodpecker, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory.
The suggestion is not that women can't be outstanding or appalling (or that men can't be 'normal'), just that men are likelier to be atrocious or amazing.
Maybe the left (and many others) can't stand the thought that people should be prejudged according to their sex or race?
I'm not suggesting that people should be judged by their sex or race. What I'm objecting to is quota filling. In my opinion, anytime a job is subject to quotas it is an acknowledgement that the job isn't actually that important.
As an statistical analyst I include my own job in that category. When i was struggling to get a job after leaving university I got quite a long way down the process of becoming an air traffic controller. Now that's a job dominated by men and whilst the industry says all the right things about getting more women, ability has to come first in that profession.
Of course, when it comes to the top jobs at NATS.....
Wagering on politics never really appealed to me but I was inspired by this site to open a Sporting Index account and bought the SNP at 21 seats a month or two back. I could now trade in at 29 and make a very handsome gain. I can't see myself backing against a party and I don't know enough about English constituencies to make a sensible wager.
I have never tried constituency betting because the seats that are near certain wins for the SNP eg Gordon are at prohibitively short prices. I wonder , however , if these are tactics that could be followed.
One the current swing Labour to SNP (and Lib to SNP is 20 per cent). Consider for backing any seat that requires a swing of say 15 per cent, leaving yourself a margin of comfort.
Two and this is the one I like. The present opinion polls for Westminster look not unlike the Scottish parliament election of 2011 - slightly better for the SNP, slightly worse for Labour. The near equivalent seats which fell comfortably that night in 2011 look good to me. For example Linlithgow would be in that category where the SNP are a decent price.
What do you think?i
I think you're right - the 2011 results are definitely a better guide than the 2010 GE constituency results. Just check whether the 2015 GE constituency lines up with the 2011 Scottish parliament constituency - wikipedia should give a decent idea of whether this is the case.
Ed Miliband walks into a bank to cash a cheque. “Good morning”, says Ed, “would you please cash this cheque for me?” Cashier: “It would be my pleasure Sir, but could you please show me some identification?” Miliband: “Truthfully… I did not bring my ID with me as I didn’t think there was any need to. But hang on! I’m Ed Miliband, Leader of the Opposition and of the Labour Party!!!” Cashier: ““Yes Sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of impostors and forgers etc, I must insist on seeing some identification”. Miliband: “Just ask any of the customers here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am!” Cashier: “I’m sorry Sir, but these are the bank rules and I must follow them”. Miliband: “I am urging you please, to cash this cheque for me”. Cashier: “Look Sir, this is what we can do. One day Colin Montgomery came into the bank without any ID. To prove he was Colin Montgomery he pulled out his putter and putted a ball along the floor and into a small cup. With that sort of skill we knew it was Colin Montgomery and we cashed his cheque. On another occasion, Andy Murray came in without any ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and lobbed a tennis ball straight into my teacup with such a spectacular shot that we all knew it was Andy Murray.’ Ed Miliband stood there thinking and thinking and then finally says, “To be honest, there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can’t think of a single thing that I’m any good at.” Cashier: “Will it be large or small notes you require Mr Miliband?’
For PB Tories (including the writer of this execrable article whose ideologically partisan tenor and narrow-minded assumptions do not seem at home on this blog) it would appear that the main problem is the seeming inability to imagine any world other than one in which a tiny minority of feral rich continue to concentrate wealth and resources ad infinitum whilst the living standards of the middle classes are left to collapse. There is no question where 'there is no alternative' is not the answer. And they wonder why this worldview is about as popular as Ebola.
Another risible Labour shill crawls out the woodwork. I guess we should expect a plague of them until May....
LOL, another example shows how nasty Tories really are , vile twisted bitter nasty c****
It still hurts doesn't it, being told by a southern turnip how you would fail to get Independence - and why.
We feel your pain. It gives us turnips a good laugh, knowing we have a better handle on the Scottish mind-set than you.
The only handle you had was on the cash to bribe people. Will not be so lucky next time.
Lol. You couldn't win with oil at the top of the market. You'll have no chance next time.
This maybe the logical view but lefties lack economic logic and Scotland seems full of lefties sucking on the teat of state welfare, so I view independence as inevitable.
Typical Tory tosser response. I am hardly a leftie and have worked for over 40 years and earn plenty. So your pathetic Tory jibe is as accurate as any Tory boast, keep braying.
Given what's at stake in the NFL (money, pride, etc.), if black players were better at QB you can bet that they'd be dominating the position. The reason they aren't is that they are simply less likely to be as good as white QBs (certainly in the NFL, I believe things are different in the College game where athletic ability is more important for the QB).
Now I'm very confident in stating that white players are more likely to be better at QB. I'm far less certain of saying the same about football managers or FTSE 100 directors. But if it's possible that in sport different people are suited to different jobs, then it's likely to be true in other walks of life.
Except the percentage of teams with starting black quarter backs is going up as the years tick by. Unless there's a hitherto unspotted connection between African Americanness and bad arm strength I am super confident in saying that historically the lack of black quarter backs is down to prejudice about mental faculties - black players didn't get to play quarter back as youngsters, so they didn't get to play QB at high school so they didn't play QB in college so they didn't get to be QB in the NFL.
As America has got less racist the number of black QBs has increased.
Ed Miliband walks into a bank to cash a cheque. “Good morning”, says Ed, “would you please cash this cheque for me?” Cashier: “It would be my pleasure Sir, but could you please show me some identification?” Miliband: “Truthfully… I did not bring my ID with me as I didn’t think there was any need to. But hang on! I’m Ed Miliband, Leader of the Opposition and of the Labour Party!!!” Cashier: ““Yes Sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of impostors and forgers etc, I must insist on seeing some identification”. Miliband: “Just ask any of the customers here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am!” Cashier: “I’m sorry Sir, but these are the bank rules and I must follow them”. Miliband: “I am urging you please, to cash this cheque for me”. Cashier: “Look Sir, this is what we can do. One day Colin Montgomery came into the bank without any ID. To prove he was Colin Montgomery he pulled out his putter and putted a ball along the floor and into a small cup. With that sort of skill we knew it was Colin Montgomery and we cashed his cheque. On another occasion, Andy Murray came in without any ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and lobbed a tennis ball straight into my teacup with such a spectacular shot that we all knew it was Andy Murray.’ Ed Miliband stood there thinking and thinking and then finally says, “To be honest, there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can’t think of a single thing that I’m any good at.” Cashier: “Will it be large or small notes you require Mr Miliband?’
If all the Muslims in the world became Hindu/Jewish/Sikh/AN Other overnight and vice versa, we would be in the same position as now with regards to extremism and terrorism
pic.twitter.com/nPA3Q03b6N
Based on what evidence, JihadiSam?
Are Christians offended by pix of Jesus? Are Sikhs offended by pix of Guru Nanak? Are Buddhists offended by pix of Buddha? Are Hindus offended by pix of Ganesh/Vishnu/Shiva? Are Jews offended by pix of Moses?
If all the Muslims in the world became Hindu/Jewish/Sikh/AN Other overnight and vice versa, we would be in the same position as now with regards to extremism and terrorism
pic.twitter.com/nPA3Q03b6N
Based on what evidence, JihadiSam?
Are Christians offended by pix of Jesus? Are Sikhs offended by pix of Guru Nanak? Are Buddhists offended by pix of Buddha? Are Hindus offended by pix of Ganesh/Vishnu/Shiva?
The specifics of what they would be offended by are irrelevant.. they'd find something if the conditions were right for extremism
If all the Muslims in the world became Hindu/Jewish/Sikh/AN Other overnight and vice versa, we would be in the same position as now with regards to extremism and terrorism
pic.twitter.com/nPA3Q03b6N
Based on what evidence, JihadiSam?
Are Christians offended by pix of Jesus? Are Sikhs offended by pix of Guru Nanak? Are Buddhists offended by pix of Buddha? Are Hindus offended by pix of Ganesh/Vishnu/Shiva? Are Jews offended by pix of Moses?
The specifics of what they would be offended by are irrelevant.. they'd find something if the conditions were right for extremism
Maybe the left (and many others) can't stand the thought that people should be prejudged according to their sex or race?
Its not judgement, its biology, and typical leftist muddled thinking, I dont hear any cries for mixed soccer teams, mixed rugby teams... why not ? because there are unavoidably differences between the sexes, mother nature apologies for this inconvenient fact and hopes it doesn't interfere with people's political beliefs (as if)
Of course the pincer he mentions applies to all parties with their attempts to represent fiscal rectitude contrasting with their ever willingness to promise more spending and tax cuts towards their potential supporters.
The underlying situation remains the one I mentioned here back in 2008 - that in a globalised world economy the UK is competing against peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and under fewer restrictions.
How then do we afford our higher living standards ?
The answer is that we don't, we simply borrow £100bn plus each and every year to keep the pretence going.
At some point that comes to a painful ending and the longer it is delayed the more painful it will be.
If all the Muslims in the world became Hindu/Jewish/Sikh/AN Other overnight and vice versa, we would be in the same position as now with regards to extremism and terrorism
pic.twitter.com/nPA3Q03b6N
Based on what evidence, JihadiSam?
Are Christians offended by pix of Jesus? Are Sikhs offended by pix of Guru Nanak? Are Buddhists offended by pix of Buddha? Are Hindus offended by pix of Ganesh/Vishnu/Shiva? Are Jews offended by pix of Moses?
The specifics of what they would be offended by are irrelevant.. they'd find something if the conditions were right for extremism
I ask again - Based on what evidence, JihadiSam?
By the way, I would also say that I don't think the reason for Muslim extremism is the offence they take at pictures of Mohammed
I think the evidence is there in any conflict between two masses of people since the dawn of time. I think the desire for power and control are the reasons for the conflict and religion/race/football team/sexuality is window dressing
The argument that it is something fundamentally different about Muslims, seems to me like saying black people are fundamentally different to white people, which is something you don't hear much now
People will say that religion is a choice/colour isn't, but to many people it isn't really a choice, and many people choose not to define themselves by colour anyway
Given what's at stake in the NFL (money, pride, etc.), if black players were better at QB you can bet that they'd be dominating the position. The reason they aren't is that they are simply less likely to be as good as white QBs (certainly in the NFL, I believe things are different in the College game where athletic ability is more important for the QB).
Now I'm very confident in stating that white players are more likely to be better at QB. I'm far less certain of saying the same about football managers or FTSE 100 directors. But if it's possible that in sport different people are suited to different jobs, then it's likely to be true in other walks of life.
Except the percentage of teams with starting black quarter backs is going up as the years tick by. Unless there's a hitherto unspotted connection between African Americanness and bad arm strength I am super confident in saying that historically the lack of black quarter backs is down to prejudice about mental faculties - black players didn't get to play quarter back as youngsters, so they didn't get to play QB at high school so they didn't play QB in college so they didn't get to be QB in the NFL.
As America has got less racist the number of black QBs has increased.
I don't follow it but I think a far larger proportion of QBs are black in the college game. But running/read option is a far larger part of the QB's game in college football.
This might be an over-simplification of the situation, but the NFL is on another/very different level to college football. Robert Griffin III was a sensation in his first season at the Redskins and they implemented a read-option approach to the game successfully. I know he's had injuries (a downside to the running QB's game by the way), but I think opposition defensive coordinators have found him out and have come up with ways of neutralizing his game.
I'm not saying that there hasn't been racism towards potential black QBs and I'm sure the proportion of QBs that are black is going up. But it still seems to me that the very best QBs in the NFL are usually white. And that's just the way it is.
The underlying situation remains the one I mentioned here back in 2008 - that in a globalised world economy the UK is competing against peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and under fewer restrictions.
How then do we afford our higher living standards ?
The answer is that we don't, we simply borrow £100bn plus each and every year to keep the pretence going.
At some point that comes to a painful ending and the longer it is delayed the more painful it will be.
Very much this. The response from politicians is largely a massed inserting of fingers in ears and loud incantations of "la-la-la", the good Dr Palmer being an honorable exception who has starting to discuss this on his blog I notice.
The argument that it is something fundamentally different about Muslims, seems to me like saying black people are fundamentally different to white people, which is something you don't hear much now
People will say that religion is a choice/colour isn't, but to many people it isn't really a choice, and many people choose not to define themselves by colour anyway
I suggest this debate has gone as far as it is going, minds have been made up, facts now surplus to requirement, its just going to go around in circles.
So two weeks into the new year and twenty weeks after the Rotherham report the government policy of non-action continues.
We have Childrens Minister Edward Timpson sitting on an Ofsted report describing Rotherham's Childrens Services as 'inadequate', now there's an understatement, for eight weeks without any response.
Meanwhile the silence from the Home Office grows ever more deafening. Take a look at this report from the Home Affairs Select Committee and its current status:
Inquiry status: concluded, report published 18 October 2014 Awaiting Government Response
The underlying situation remains the one I mentioned here back in 2008 - that in a globalised world economy the UK is competing against peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and under fewer restrictions.
How then do we afford our higher living standards ?
The answer is that we don't, we simply borrow £100bn plus each and every year to keep the pretence going.
At some point that comes to a painful ending and the longer it is delayed the more painful it will be.
Very much this. The response from politicians is largely a massed inserting of fingers in ears and loud incantations of "la-la-la", the good Dr Palmer being an honorable exception who has starting to discuss this on his blog I notice.
I never knew that NP has his own blog, will have a look later.
Wagering on politics never really appealed to me but I was inspired by this site to open a Sporting Index account and bought the SNP at 21 seats a month or two back. I could now trade in at 29 and make a very handsome gain. I can't see myself backing against a party and I don't know enough about English constituencies to make a sensible wager.
I have never tried constituency betting because the seats that are near certain wins for the SNP eg Gordon are at prohibitively short prices. I wonder , however , if these are tactics that could be followed.
One the current swing Labour to SNP (and Lib to SNP is 20 per cent). Consider for backing any seat that requires a swing of say 15 per cent, leaving yourself a margin of comfort.
Two and this is the one I like. The present opinion polls for Westminster look not unlike the Scottish parliament election of 2011 - slightly better for the SNP, slightly worse for Labour. The near equivalent seats which fell comfortably that night in 2011 look good to me. For example Linlithgow would be in that category where the SNP are a decent price.
What do you think?i
I think you're right - the 2011 results are definitely a better guide than the 2010 GE constituency results. Just check whether the 2015 GE constituency lines up with the 2011 Scottish parliament constituency - wikipedia should give a decent idea of whether this is the case.
I think this is a sensible approach as well. In reality SLAB lost much of its support in 2011 and didn't even notice, which is why it is going to find it difficult to retrieve the situation by GE2015.
The underlying situation remains the one I mentioned here back in 2008 - that in a globalised world economy the UK is competing against peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and under fewer restrictions.
How then do we afford our higher living standards ?
The answer is that we don't, we simply borrow £100bn plus each and every year to keep the pretence going.
At some point that comes to a painful ending and the longer it is delayed the more painful it will be.
Very much this. The response from politicians is largely a massed inserting of fingers in ears and loud incantations of "la-la-la", the good Dr Palmer being an honorable exception who has starting to discuss this on his blog I notice.
Its noticeable that on any discussion about the UK's trade or current account deficit the solution is assumed to be greater exports.
That the UK has a 'right' to import as much as it wants or to have as many foreign holidays as it wants is never questioned.
The argument that it is something fundamentally different about Muslims, seems to me like saying black people are fundamentally different to white people, which is something you don't hear much now
People will say that religion is a choice/colour isn't, but to many people it isn't really a choice, and many people choose not to define themselves by colour anyway
I suggest this debate has gone as far as it is going, minds have been made up, facts now surplus to requirement, its just going to go around in circles.
Please don't fall into the PB smart arse trap of trying to make it look as though you are being reasonable while having a dig.
It's like saying "I'll let you have the last word" and trying to affect it as a courteousy rather than the trolling it is
If all the Muslims in the world became Hindu/Jewish/Sikh/AN Other overnight and vice versa, we would be in the same position as now with regards to extremism and terrorism
pic.twitter.com/nPA3Q03b6N
Based on what evidence, JihadiSam?
Are Christians offended by pix of Jesus? Are Sikhs offended by pix of Guru Nanak? Are Buddhists offended by pix of Buddha? Are Hindus offended by pix of Ganesh/Vishnu/Shiva?
The specifics of what they would be offended by are irrelevant.. they'd find something if the conditions were right for extremism
Your theory falls down for two reasons:
1st because faiths are inherently different -Islam and Judaism are lifestyle religions -'Islam' itself means 'submission'. Submission to a way of life, doing the right things to get the right result. Christianity is a religion of conscience -it is about entering into a relationship with God. You're commanded to be a good person, but that goodness is meant to come as a result and in conjunction with your Christianity, not something you do in order to secure your salvation.That's why it is less proscriptive in terms of head coverings, diet etc. There are substantial Christian minorities scattered around the world, such as the Copts in Egypt, and they are persecuted rather than the other way around.
Secondly, you're basing your theory on antecedents, rather than consequences. Your antecedent is 'a fundamentalist religious group forming a sizeable minority in a given state' -but behaviour is based on consequences more than antecedents. Therefore it depends more on the host state's response to stridently religious minorities, than the wishes of those minorities. We do what we do because the positive reinforcement of doing so outweighs the negative consequences.
Since when did anything in Govt get responded to immediately unless its a terrorist attack or something akin to it.
You just want to beat the Govt with a stick. You don't know that nothing is being done, you just are not aware.. yet.. of what is going on behind the scenes.
Surely though Labour's problems are mirrored on the Tory side too? Hence why we've seen a revolt on the right. It's a problem that goes back to the start of the New Labour project and its relationship to Thatcherism. The inequality that occurs as a result of Friedmanite economics is unacceptable to many, especially when it gets past a certain point and completely detaches the interests of 'the rich' from those of the middle-class. Part of the reason CEOs and bankers are so readily bashable is that they're not within the realms of aspiration for many - a decently paid middle-manager (or a top-level professional in certain fields) probably feels he or she has far more in common financially with the shop floor than the boss. New Labour's answer was that people earning more at the top would help pay for both public services and directly be able to ameliorate poverty through tax credits. This of course didn't work out for a number of reasons. You become reliant on a small and untypical group of individuals and companies for a large amount of revenue, meaning that you have to contort to 'attract' them and institute policies which both seem unfair and build in an acceptance of avoidance that is unhealthy in the long run. Also a major hit to this group and the resulting crisis in confidence can spectacularly derail your financial projections. Finally you do nothing to solve the underlying structure of the economy that causes the imbalances. So, after 2008 in a way both left and right are right - there's no money to spend, but at the same time the rich have ripped everyone off - that high pay and dividends was supposed to reflect growth due to their genius resulting in growth from higher productivity - instead it was built on personal debt and holding down wages and much of the money has been squirreled away as the top people use the advantages that having high amounts of capital gives. The state, which made the Faustian bargain in the first place, is left having to borrow, put taxes up on those who can't avoid them/leave or cut.
The problem then is that the two approaches we have both come with unacceptable consequences - austerity within our current economy means a move towards a society few want, with worse inequality and declining public services. Yet pouring more money in isn't an option either, unless you can find a way to vastly raise revenues, which is a little more complicated than left populists think.
Neither party have managed to square the circle with their policies, which is why neither can seem to get a dominant lead in the polls, and why both are running on the fear that the other's approach has the more unacceptable consqeuences, while trying to neutralise the other's attacks by attempting to be moderate on its weak points. The party that does eventually solve the conundrum will be rewarded handsomely, but none are ready to yet.
I bought Matthew D'Ancona's book on the coalition this morning, "In It Together".
The preface is as far as I've got so far. But that alone is pretty special, and very revealing about the Cameroons. Bear in mind Matthew D'Ancona is one of the modernisers biggest and most vocal defenders:
"What attracted me (was)... the very specific origins of the Cameroon elite: they are a social grouping which chanced upon a political project, rather than a regular political faction like New Labour.."
"In the case of David Cameron's set.. the gang came before the faction: indeed my first real contact with it was not through journalism at all, but on a group holiday in Tuscany in my twenties."
"(Cameron) and Osborne called Blair "The Master" with a combination of both mirth and filial piety."
"To add to the eccentricity of the new governing Tory elite in 2010, its ranks were suddenly swollen with leading figures from a party that, for many years, and in many ways, had treated the Conservative Party as the deadly enemy it shared with Labour, and had explored the possibility of entrenching a 'progressive majority' or a 'realignment of politics' by altering the electoral system."
That bears repeating: That had for many years, and in many ways, treated *its own party* as as the *deadly enemy* it shared with Labour.
Just fascinating. And so revealing.
And I haven't even got to page 1 yet. I can't wait to read the rest.
The underlying situation remains the one I mentioned here back in 2008 - that in a globalised world economy the UK is competing against peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and under fewer restrictions.
How then do we afford our higher living standards ?
The answer is that we don't, we simply borrow £100bn plus each and every year to keep the pretence going.
At some point that comes to a painful ending and the longer it is delayed the more painful it will be.
Very much this. The response from politicians is largely a massed inserting of fingers in ears and loud incantations of "la-la-la", the good Dr Palmer being an honorable exception who has starting to discuss this on his blog I notice.
I never knew that NP has his own blog, will have a look later.
The argument that it is something fundamentally different about Muslims, seems to me like saying black people are fundamentally different to white people, which is something you don't hear much now
People will say that religion is a choice/colour isn't, but to many people it isn't really a choice, and many people choose not to define themselves by colour anyway
I suggest this debate has gone as far as it is going, minds have been made up, facts now surplus to requirement, its just going to go around in circles.
Please don't fall into the PB smart arse trap of trying to make it look as though you are being reasonable while having a dig.
It's like saying "I'll let you have the last word" and trying to affect it as a courteousy rather than the trolling it is
Perhaps he's not arguing because your theory is patently absurd. Of course religions are different. They are based on totally different texts, totally different concepts of God, and command followers to do totally different things. Even within single faiths there are huge differences in denominations.
If all the Muslims in the world became Hindu/Jewish/Sikh/AN Other overnight and vice versa, we would be in the same position as now with regards to extremism and terrorism
pic.twitter.com/nPA3Q03b6N
Based on what evidence, JihadiSam?
Are Christians offended by pix of Jesus? Are Sikhs offended by pix of Guru Nanak? Are Buddhists offended by pix of Buddha? Are Hindus offended by pix of Ganesh/Vishnu/Shiva?
The specifics of what they would be offended by are irrelevant.. they'd find something if the conditions were right for extremism
Your theory falls down for two reasons:
1st because faiths are inherently different -Islam and Judaism are lifestyle religions -'Islam' itself means 'submission'. Submission to a way of life, doing the right things to get the right result. Christianity is a religion of conscience -it is about entering into a relationship with God. You're commanded to be a good person, but that goodness is meant to come as a result and in conjunction with your Christianity, not something you do in order to secure your salvation.That's why it is less proscriptive in terms of head coverings, diet etc. There are substantial Christian minorities scattered around the world, such as the Copts in Egypt, and they are persecuted rather than the other way around.
Secondly, you're basing your theory on antecedents, rather than consequences. Your antecedent is 'a fundamentalist religious group forming a sizeable minority in a given state' -but behaviour is based on consequences more than antecedents. Therefore it depends more on the host state's response to stridently religious minorities, than the wishes of those minorities. We do what we do because the positive reinforcement of doing so outweighs the negative consequences.
Firstly most of the terrorists are using religion as a token for their violence. If Christians were the muslims terrorists would find parts of the bible to justify violence while normal religious people would ignore those parts, as most religious people combine modern enlightened views with religious text
Secondly, yes, if the host states response is weak that is the match that lights the gunpowder for civil strife between the growing minority you speak of and the people there already
The underlying situation remains the one I mentioned here back in 2008 - that in a globalised world economy the UK is competing against peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and under fewer restrictions.
How then do we afford our higher living standards ?
The answer is that we don't, we simply borrow £100bn plus each and every year to keep the pretence going.
At some point that comes to a painful ending and the longer it is delayed the more painful it will be.
Very much this. The response from politicians is largely a massed inserting of fingers in ears and loud incantations of "la-la-la", the good Dr Palmer being an honorable exception who has starting to discuss this on his blog I notice.
As the globalised world becomes richer there are more markets for our goods and services. As our producers of those doods prosper they invest and consume local goods and other services. With the growth of democracy in the global economy comes the growth of wealth and an unwillingness to accept restrictions to social and economic well being. At the moment we are attracting lots of inward investment and creating large numbers of jobs and the govt is controlling and cutting its spending. All the la la la is coming from is yourself and your friends. The point of the article is that we need to keep Labour away from the economy as the following statement from David Smith of The Sunday Times makes clear. ''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn'' During that time a lot of people had a lot of 'unrealistic expectations about what is possible' . They will again if Labour bluff theor way to power
Surely though Labour's problems are mirrored on the Tory side too? Hence why we've seen a revolt on the right. It's a problem that goes back to the start of the New Labour project and its relationship to Thatcherism. The inequality that occurs as a result of Friedmanite economics is unacceptable to many, especially when it gets past a certain point and completely detaches the interests of 'the rich' from those of the middle-class. Part of the reason CEOs and bankers are so readily bashable is that they're not within the realms of aspiration for many - a decently paid middle-manager (or a top-level professional in certain fields) probably feels he or she has far more in common financially with the shop floor than the boss. New Labour's answer was that people earning more at the top would help pay for both public services and directly be able to ameliorate poverty through tax credits. This of course didn't work out for a number of reasons. You become reliant on a small and untypical group of individuals and companies for a large amount of revenue, meaning that you have to contort to 'attract' them and institute policies which both seem unfair and build in an acceptance of avoidance that is unhealthy in the long run. Also a major hit to this group and the resulting crisis in confidence can spectacularly derail your financial projections. Finally you do nothing to solve the underlying structure of the economy that causes the imbalances. So, after 2008 in a way both left and right are right - there's no money to spend, but at the same time the rich have ripped everyone off - that high pay and dividends was supposed to reflect growth due to their genius resulting in growth from higher productivity - instead it was built on personal debt and holding down wages and much of the money has been squirreled away as the top people use the advantages that having high amounts of capital gives. The state, which made the Faustian bargain in the first place, is left having to borrow, put taxes up on those who can't avoid them/leave or cut.
Neither party have managed to square the circle with their policies, which is why neither can seem to get a dominant lead in the polls, and why both are running on the fear that the other's approach has the more unacceptable consqeuences, while trying to neutralise the other's attacks by attempting to be moderate on its weak points. The party that does eventually solve the conundrum will be rewarded handsomely, but none are ready to yet.
Indeed.
The inequality is especially unacceptable when its not even 'earned'.
Fatcats, in both public and private sectors, being rewarded for failure and protected rather than punished for misconduct.
"It's one rule for them and another rule for us" is a lot more widely believed than "We're all in this together".
I bought Matthew D'Ancona's book on the coalition this morning, "In It Together".
The preface is as far as I've got so far. But that alone is pretty special, and very revealing about the Cameroons. Bear in mind Matthew D'Ancona is one of the modernisers biggest and most vocal defenders:
"What attracted me (was)... the very specific origins of the Cameroon elite: they are a social grouping which chanced upon a political project, rather than a regular political faction like New Labour.."
"In the case of David Cameron's set.. the gang came before the faction: indeed my first real contact with it was not through journalism at all, but on a group holiday in Tuscany in my twenties."
"(Cameron) and Osborne called Blair "The Master" with a combination of both mirth and filial piety."
"To add to the eccentricity of the new governing Tory elite in 2010, its ranks were suddenly swollen with leading figures from a party that, for many years, and in many ways, had treated the Conservative Party as the deadly enemy it shared with Labour, and had explored the possibility of entrenching a 'progressive majority' or a 'realignment of politics' by altering the electoral system."
That bears repeating: That had for many years, and in many ways, treated *its own party* as as the *deadly enemy* it shared with Labour.
Just fascinating. And so revealing.
And I haven't even got to page 1 yet. I can't wait to read the rest.
Are you sure he does not mean the LibDems, who joined the government in 2010 ?
Neither party have managed to square the circle with their policies, which is why neither can seem to get a dominant lead in the polls, and why both are running on the fear that the other's approach has the more unacceptable consqeuences, while trying to neutralise the other's attacks by attempting to be moderate on its weak points. The party that does eventually solve the conundrum will be rewarded handsomely, but none are ready to yet.
Nicely put.
This was the subject of detailed debate a week or so ago, with some excellent contributions if I recall from foxinsox, to the effect that globalisation is acting to reduce differences between nations at the cost of increasing internal inequality.
The reality of globalisation is that government simultaneously gets the "benefit" of being able to import cheap labour to keep their unit cost down, but gain the flipside that they are unable to significantly impose themselves on the corporations because there are always countries willing to be more lenient that your who want the revenue, this isn't an immediate effect of course, nor just economic, in the same way the various green emissions taxes are humbug, the heavily polluting industries just move to countries more desperate for the money who turn a blind eye to the pollution, we export in effect both pollution and jobs, and ultimately wealth.
At the other end of the scale, the super rich are almost immune to government as well, they can afford the best accountants and lawyers, and move between jurisdictions more or less at will. A high number of the highest earners are "perpetual travellers", carefully keeping their residency below 120 days a year in any one country, and basically paying no income tax. One famous perpetual traveller whose name escapes me used to live in 5 star hotels in the capitals of Europe, and move on every 3-4 months, finding that the tax he saved paid for his hotel bills.
The underlying situation remains the one I mentioned here back in 2008 - that in a globalised world economy the UK is competing against peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and under fewer restrictions.
How then do we afford our higher living standards ?
The answer is that we don't, we simply borrow £100bn plus each and every year to keep the pretence going.
At some point that comes to a painful ending and the longer it is delayed the more painful it will be.
Very much this. The response from politicians is largely a massed inserting of fingers in ears and loud incantations of "la-la-la", the good Dr Palmer being an honorable exception who has starting to discuss this on his blog I notice.
As the globalised world becomes richer there are more markets for our goods and services. As our producers of those doods prosper they invest and consume local goods and other services. With the growth of democracy in the global economy comes the growth of wealth and an unwillingness to accept restrictions to social and economic well being. At the moment we are attracting lots of inward investment and creating large numbers of jobs and the govt is controlling and cutting its spending. All the la la la is coming from is yourself and your friends. The point of the article is that we need to keep Labour away from the economy as the following statement from David Smith of The Sunday Times makes clear. ''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn'' During that time a lot of people had a lot of 'unrealistic expectations about what is possible' . They will again if Labour bluff theor way to power
Do you ever get tired of bleating 'my party good, your party bad' ?
You might like to explain why the UK is running the largest current deficit in history, has lower industrial production and productivity than it did in 2010, has/is borrowing hundreds of billions more than the government forecast and why the future government borrowing forecasts depend upon a record rise in household borrowing.
Neither party have managed to square the circle with their policies, which is why neither can seem to get a dominant lead in the polls, and why both are running on the fear that the other's approach has the more unacceptable consqeuences, while trying to neutralise the other's attacks by attempting to be moderate on its weak points. The party that does eventually solve the conundrum will be rewarded handsomely, but none are ready to yet.
Nicely put.
This was the subject of detailed debate a week or so ago, with some excellent contributions if I recall from foxinsox, to the effect that globalisation is acting to reduce differences between nations at the cost of increasing internal inequality.
The reality of globalisation is that government simultaneously gets the "benefit" of being able to import cheap labour to keep their unit cost down, but gain the flipside that they are unable to significantly impose themselves on the corporations because there are always countries willing to be more lenient that your who want the revenue, this isn't an immediate effect of course, nor just economic, in the same way the various green emissions taxes are humbug, the heavily polluting industries just move to countries more desperate for the money who turn a blind eye to the pollution, we export in effect both pollution and jobs, and ultimately wealth.
At the other end of the scale, the super rich are almost immune to government as well, they can afford the best accountants and lawyers, and move between jurisdictions more or less at will. A high number of the highest earners are "perpetual travellers", carefully keeping their residency below 120 days a year in any one country, and basically paying no income tax. One famous perpetual traveller whose name escapes me used to live in 5 star hotels in the capitals of Europe, and move on every 3-4 months, finding that the tax he saved paid for his hotel bills.
Its always good to read here people, of whatever political allegiance, who are willing to think about things.
The other end of the scale are the tedious cheerleaders irrespective of political allegiance.
I bought Matthew D'Ancona's book on the coalition this morning, "In It Together".
The preface is as far as I've got so far. But that alone is pretty special, and very revealing about the Cameroons. Bear in mind Matthew D'Ancona is one of the modernisers biggest and most vocal defenders:
"What attracted me (was)... the very specific origins of the Cameroon elite: they are a social grouping which chanced upon a political project, rather than a regular political faction like New Labour.."
"In the case of David Cameron's set.. the gang came before the faction: indeed my first real contact with it was not through journalism at all, but on a group holiday in Tuscany in my twenties."
"(Cameron) and Osborne called Blair "The Master" with a combination of both mirth and filial piety."
"To add to the eccentricity of the new governing Tory elite in 2010, its ranks were suddenly swollen with leading figures from a party that, for many years, and in many ways, had treated the Conservative Party as the deadly enemy it shared with Labour, and had explored the possibility of entrenching a 'progressive majority' or a 'realignment of politics' by altering the electoral system."
That bears repeating: That had for many years, and in many ways, treated *its own party* as as the *deadly enemy* it shared with Labour.
Just fascinating. And so revealing.
And I haven't even got to page 1 yet. I can't wait to read the rest.
Are you sure he does not mean the LibDems, who joined the government in 2010 ?
Hmm. Perhaps. It is so hard to tell the difference.
"To add to the eccentricity of the new governing Tory elite in 2010, its ranks were suddenly swollen with leading figures from a party that, for many years, and in many ways, had treated the Conservative Party as the deadly enemy it shared with Labour, and had explored the possibility of entrenching a 'progressive majority' or a 'realignment of politics' by altering the electoral system."
That bears repeating: That had for many years, and in many ways, treated *its own party* as as the *deadly enemy* it shared with Labour.
Just fascinating. And so revealing.
I think you are misreading it (obviously I don't have the context as the book is still fourth down in my "to read" pile)
I think it is referring to a new group (influx) joining the "new governing Tory elite" in 2010. Depending on context, this could either be Blairites or, possibly, LibDems.
It's talking about why the government leadership group (even the Tory members) sometimes appears detached from the Tory Party. I don't think it is suggesting that, before 2010, the wholly-Tory leadership regarded its own part as the enemy.
One famous perpetual traveller whose name escapes me used to live in 5 star hotels in the capitals of Europe, and move on every 3-4 months, finding that the tax he saved paid for his hotel bills.
There is someone I know who lives like this.
His wife (an American heiress) lives in Switzerland, while he is based in the UK, weekends in Switzerland, but spends less than 90 days in any one country.
Given how rich he is it's frankly immoral organise your affairs in this way
(And, FWIW, I reckon it's a pretty miserable lifestyle anyway)
The underlying situation remains the one I mentioned here back in 2008 - that in a globalised world economy the UK is competing against peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and under fewer restrictions.
How then do we afford our higher living standards ?
The answer is that we don't, we simply borrow £100bn plus each and every year to keep the pretence going.
At some point that comes to a painful ending and the longer it is delayed the more painful it will be.
Very much this. The response from politicians is largely a massed inserting of fingers in ears and loud incantations of "la-la-la", the good Dr Palmer being an honorable exception who has starting to discuss this on his blog I notice.
As the globalised world becomes richer there are more markets for our goods and services. As our producers of those doods prosper they invest and consume local goods and other services. With the growth of democracy in the global economy comes the growth of wealth and an unwillingness to accept restrictions to social and economic well being. At the moment we are attracting lots of inward investment and creating large numbers of jobs and the govt is controlling and cutting its spending. All the la la la is coming from is yourself and your friends. The point of the article is that we need to keep Labour away from the economy as the following statement from David Smith of The Sunday Times makes clear. ''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn'' During that time a lot of people had a lot of 'unrealistic expectations about what is possible' . They will again if Labour bluff theor way to power
Do you ever get tired of bleating 'my party good, your party bad' ?
You might like to explain why the UK is running the largest current deficit in history, has lower industrial production and productivity than it did in 2010, has/is borrowing hundreds of billions more than the government forecast and why the future government borrowing forecasts depend upon a record rise in household borrowing.
Is it true that'every Labour Government ends up running out of money'? I seem to recall that when Labour left office in June 1970 it bequeathed a big balance of payments surplus to its successor - very different to the record deficit inherited from the Tories in October 1964. In addition, Roy Jenkins as the outgoing Chancellor in 1970 left the public finances in reasonable shape.
Another sneering Tory, the fan boys on here are in top nasty form today, will not be so smug in May mind you, beaten by a loser. I wonder who will be calling the shots.
I am surprised that anyone takes the Daily Mail at all seriously. The British public need to be reminded far more frequently of its status as 'Adolf Hitler's favourite British nespaper'.
The argument that it is something fundamentally different about Muslims, seems to me like saying black people are fundamentally different to white people, which is something you don't hear much now
People will say that religion is a choice/colour isn't, but to many people it isn't really a choice, and many people choose not to define themselves by colour anyway
I suggest this debate has gone as far as it is going, minds have been made up, facts now surplus to requirement, its just going to go around in circles.
Please don't fall into the PB smart arse trap of trying to make it look as though you are being reasonable while having a dig.
It's like saying "I'll let you have the last word" and trying to affect it as a courteousy rather than the trolling it is
Perhaps he's not arguing because your theory is patently absurd. Of course religions are different. They are based on totally different texts, totally different concepts of God, and command followers to do totally different things. Even within single faiths there are huge differences in denominations.
All irrelevant to the problem of terrorism and immigration
You reckon if we swapped the number of Muslims in Europe/the World with that of another religion there would be significantly less extremism?
We'd all get on just fine if only those 1.2bn Muslims in the world were Jewish instead?
Mr. Isam, you don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise.
Cartoonists who drew Mohammed were murdered by Muslims who after proclaimed they had avenged the prophet. I think there might just be a connection to Islam.
Mr. Isam, you don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise.
Cartoonists who drew Mohammed were murdered by Muslims who after proclaimed they had avenged the prophet. I think there might just be a connection to Islam.
Blimey you are misunderstanding what I am saying by such a margin I would have thought it deliberate if I didn't know better
The argument that it is something fundamentally different about Muslims, seems to me like saying black people are fundamentally different to white people, which is something you don't hear much now
People will say that religion is a choice/colour isn't, but to many people it isn't really a choice, and many people choose not to define themselves by colour anyway
I suggest this debate has gone as far as it is going, minds have been made up, facts now surplus to requirement, its just going to go around in circles.
Please don't fall into the PB smart arse trap of trying to make it look as though you are being reasonable while having a dig.
It's like saying "I'll let you have the last word" and trying to affect it as a courteousy rather than the trolling it is
Perhaps he's not arguing because your theory is patently absurd. Of course religions are different. They are based on totally different texts, totally different concepts of God, and command followers to do totally different things. Even within single faiths there are huge differences in denominations.
All irrelevant to the problem of terrorism and immigration
You reckon if we swapped the number of Muslims in Europe/the World with that of another religion there would be significantly less extremism?
We'd all get on just fine if only those 1.2bn Muslims in the world were Jewish instead?
Yes. The Jews have had an Enlightenment. The Muslims haven't.
One social networking user said: "Rampant xenophobe David Starkey calls @mehdirhasan 'Ahmed' on #bbcqt - you couldn't make it up. Could the BBC just stop inviting this idiot?"
While another added: "Time to stop giving David Starkey a platform. Addressing Mehdi Hasan as Ahmed is not on, on or off national television. #bbcqt".
Of course, Mehdi Hassan can call non-Muslims "animals", and they don't call for him to be banned.
Comments
Wagering on politics never really appealed to me but I was inspired by this site to open a Sporting Index account and bought the SNP at 21 seats a month or two back. I could now trade in at 29 and make a very handsome gain. I can't see myself backing against a party and I don't know enough about English constituencies to make a sensible wager.
I have never tried constituency betting because the seats that are near certain wins for the SNP eg Gordon are at prohibitively short prices. I wonder , however , if these are tactics that could be followed.
One the current swing Labour to SNP (and Lib to SNP is 20 per cent). Consider for backing any seat that requires a swing of say 15 per cent, leaving yourself a margin of comfort.
Two and this is the one I like. The present opinion polls for Westminster look not unlike the Scottish parliament election of 2011 - slightly better for the SNP, slightly worse for Labour. The near equivalent seats which fell comfortably that night in 2011 look good to me. For example Linlithgow would be in that category where the SNP are a decent price.
What do you think?i
I should have said the problems arise when mass migration causes a fast growth of the significant minority, such as England's Muslim population 1960-2015 combined with a lack of requirement to acknowledge that the prevailing dominant culture is No1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30853305
Australians vs Indigenous Australians ? At the time the incomers started repressing the native australians they already outnumbered them by 5 or 6 to one.
In education it is different - the pedagogy (ok style) is geared towards women in that the teaching is excessively verbal ( a strength of women if you hadn't noticed) and is overwhelmingly taught my women.
In my youth I used to be given dozens of problems in maths to solve so that the fundamental principles of addition/ subtraction/ multiplication and division were hard-wired in my brain. Now, instead of getting 3 X 4 = ?, 4 X 5 = ? 91 / 13 = ? etc you get questions like.
Alice goes to the shops and buys 3 apples. She meets Betty on the way home and find out that she has bought 2 apples. How many apples do they have altogether?
Which engages totally different areas of the brain - mainly the language one (Left hemisphere) which then has to transfer the information over to the right hemisphere to process the actual mathematics. This transfer is done via the corpus callosum, which is much more complex in women.
So at the end of the day you find that 2/3 of girls are above average and 2/3 of boys are below average.
There is also the problem that most language these days is done by phonics/ word building rather than the whole-word approach. Again word building is left-hemispherical, whereas whole-words is right-hemisphere. And here's the rub. Boys do not transfer processing into the left hemisphere well until they are about 7 (8 or 9 if they have neurological immaturities) whereas girls transfer at about 4.5 - 5. Thus girls have two years being taught 'correctly' but for boys it is two years of torture. Are we surprised that many give up thinking they are failures.
Sorry for taking all their liability on that.
Incidentally the worst place in the world for persecuting Christians outside of North Korea is Somalia (also the world capital of FGM), we currently have over 100k Somali refugees in the UK, half of which have had their asylum turned down, and basically disappeared into the country... the next is Syria....
You can blame the teacjings of Islam if you like, we aren't going to agree. My opinion is that if Islam were the dominant religion in the establishment/richest countries in the world and Christian immigrants were flocking to them en masse we would be seeing the same arguments about the bible/Christianity from muslims who couldn't understand why a fraction on Christians were engaging in terrorism
""Broadly speaking, between 40% and 45% of European Muslims have fundamentalist religious ideas"
According to the study, Islamic fundamentalism, also known as Islam, prevails in Europe if compared to Christian fundamentalism, in which only 4% of Christians shared the ideas of the three statements of the definition.
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-islamic-fundamentalism-marginal-phenomenon-europe.html
Of course, I've been saying the same for years, and came to very similar numbers based on perusing opinion polls. I wonder if people will listen to the evidence when it comes in the form of a polite academic study.
There isnt "Civil War" in Niger there is an oppressive government, it seems. I am not saying everywhere that has a dominant culture will be a Utopia, but that where there is a fast growing significant minority there will be trouble
But seriously - do Christians find pix of Jesus "offensive"?
I believe the current term is either "first nations" or "original australians",
A subject that comes up quite regularly is the lack of black managers in English football. The theory goes that almost all managers are ex-players and as many of the players are black a fair share of the managers should be black too. In the US there is the Rooney Rule that stipulates that when a Head Coach vacancy comes up in the NFL then at least one minority candidate should be interviewed. Some think we should introduce something similar in this country.
Managers and head coaches are much like other jobs. It's quite difficult to tell who is any good so the left can argue that black players are being discriminated against by chairman.
But with the players, it's a different matter. Most wide receivers and running backs in the NFL are black. And that's simply because they are more likely to have the qualities required to excel in those positions. Most of the quarter backs - the most prestigious position in the game - are white.
Now there are some out there who believe white quarter backs are desirable from a marketing perspective and the game can't allow it to be completely dominated by black players. Such opinions are nonsense. In Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski's book Soccernomics they chart the history of black players in English football. They explain that pound for pound the teams that started to introduce black players to the game performed better than those who resisted.
Given what's at stake in the NFL (money, pride, etc.), if black players were better at QB you can bet that they'd be dominating the position. The reason they aren't is that they are simply less likely to be as good as white QBs (certainly in the NFL, I believe things are different in the College game where athletic ability is more important for the QB).
Now I'm very confident in stating that white players are more likely to be better at QB. I'm far less certain of saying the same about football managers or FTSE 100 directors. But if it's possible that in sport different people are suited to different jobs, then it's likely to be true in other walks of life.
Ultimately, though, the left can't stand the thought that ability might be correlated with things such as sex and race.
"I don't want homosexuals as friends"
Muslims: 57%
Christians: 11%
"Jews cannot be trusted"
Muslims: 44%
Christians: 8%
"Muslims are out to destroy the West"
Christians: 22%
"The West is out to destroy Muslims"
Muslims: 53%
Remember, the Muslims polled here are Europeans ones only. They've lived and grown up in the West.
http://www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u8/ruud_koopmans_religious_fundamentalism_and_out-group_hostility_among_muslims_and_christian.pdf
1 month Market 2.9%
1 year 3.5%
3 year 4.7%.
Not quite as safe as the government bond, but the government don't know you are lending the money, interest taxable but paid tax free. So not a massive vote winner anyway.
I think Islamism is particularly prone to Terrorism for several interlocking reasons:
a) The sanction of Mohammed and his followers for using the sword to resolve disputes, something much less sanctioned by other religions.
b) The coercive misogyny of Islamists that opposes the education of women, and thereby the restraining effect of women on political discourse.
c) Islams close correlation with economic failure, which creates both a need for Muslims to emigrate, and also causes them to function much worse than immigrants from other countries in their new homes. This sets up a lot of cognitive dissonance, with the supposed superiority of the Muslim over Kuffar exposed as a lie, as Kuffar are transparently more successful socially and economically. This breeds resentment, but also a lot of young men with time on their hands, for which the devil makes work.
I do need to head off now, as I have to watch Leicester City's new Balkan immigrant score a hat trick against Stoke!
We have violence on the scale of civil war on our doorstep, and instances over the last decade of violence that is describable as acts of civil war
Basically you are saying its all the fault of muslims, except when its not
Point of order, Mr. 86: that isn't *my* assessment, someone else did it. I do think it's worth considering.
Mr. Socrates, those figures are deeply concerning. And yet utterly unsurprising.
#JihadiSam
Some of those groups would then be offended by something they say is integral to their lives
"AS christians/Europeans/whatever it is they define themselves as" and terrorism would follow
More interesting facts:
Possible explanations for the high levels of religious fundamentalism and outgroup hostility among West European Muslims
• Socio-economic marginalization and exclusion?
No: education and employment explain some of the variation within the Muslim and Christian groups, but not the large difference between the two religious groups
• Alienation and acculturation stress as a result of immigration?
No: levels of fundamentalism and outgroup hostility among Muslim immigrants are very similar to those found in their countries of origin (see th
e various Pew Research surveys)
• A lack of religious rights for Muslims in Western Europe?
No: there is no clear correlation between the legal inclusion of Islam (see Carol & Koopmans in Ethnicities 2013) and fundamentalism and outgroup hostility.
• An inherent characteristic of Islam?
No: while many Sunni Muslims do subscribe to fundamentalist ideas and are hostile towards outgroups, significant numbers of Sunni Muslims hold more liberal views. Moreover, Alevite Muslims have a quite similar view on religion as Christians.
So, it's nothing to do with Muslims experiences since immigrating here. It's simply the case that they are replicating the views of their community in their country of origin. The obvious conclusion is to stymy immigration from places with such views.
And for those that think we just need to give it time:
While young Christians are less fundamentalist and hostile to outgroups than older
generations, this is not the case among Muslims.
http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/meanings-origins?field_alphabet_value=161
pic.twitter.com/nPA3Q03b6N
The suggestion is not that women can't be outstanding or appalling (or that men can't be 'normal'), just that men are likelier to be atrocious or amazing.
As an statistical analyst I include my own job in that category. When i was struggling to get a job after leaving university I got quite a long way down the process of becoming an air traffic controller. Now that's a job dominated by men and whilst the industry says all the right things about getting more women, ability has to come first in that profession.
Of course, when it comes to the top jobs at NATS.....
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/lgbt-school-criticised-by-stonewall-gay-rights
All services cancelled due to "smoke"...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2914505/Channel-tunnel-traffic-halted-smoke-detected.html
Police and Ambulances heading to the French side...
Ed Miliband walks into a bank to cash a cheque. “Good morning”, says Ed, “would you please cash this cheque for me?”
Cashier: “It would be my pleasure Sir, but could you please show me some identification?”
Miliband: “Truthfully… I did not bring my ID with me as I didn’t think there was any need to. But hang on! I’m Ed Miliband, Leader of the Opposition and of the Labour Party!!!”
Cashier: ““Yes Sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of impostors and forgers etc, I must insist on seeing some identification”.
Miliband: “Just ask any of the customers here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am!”
Cashier: “I’m sorry Sir, but these are the bank rules and I must follow them”.
Miliband: “I am urging you please, to cash this cheque for me”.
Cashier: “Look Sir, this is what we can do. One day Colin Montgomery came into the bank without any ID. To prove he was Colin Montgomery he pulled out his putter and putted a ball along the floor and into a small cup. With that sort of skill we knew it was Colin Montgomery and we cashed his cheque. On another occasion, Andy Murray came in without any ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and lobbed a tennis ball straight into my teacup with such a spectacular shot that we all knew it was Andy Murray.’
Ed Miliband stood there thinking and thinking and then finally says, “To be honest, there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can’t think of a single thing that I’m any good at.”
Cashier: “Will it be large or small notes you require Mr Miliband?’
As America has got less racist the number of black QBs has increased.
Are Christians offended by pix of Jesus?
Are Sikhs offended by pix of Guru Nanak?
Are Buddhists offended by pix of Buddha?
Are Hindus offended by pix of Ganesh/Vishnu/Shiva?
Are Jews offended by pix of Moses?
Well it must be better than Red Ed's speech!
Of course the pincer he mentions applies to all parties with their attempts to represent fiscal rectitude contrasting with their ever willingness to promise more spending and tax cuts towards their potential supporters.
The underlying situation remains the one I mentioned here back in 2008 - that in a globalised world economy the UK is competing against peoples which are as intelligent and educated as we are but who are willing to work harder for less money and under fewer restrictions.
How then do we afford our higher living standards ?
The answer is that we don't, we simply borrow £100bn plus each and every year to keep the pretence going.
At some point that comes to a painful ending and the longer it is delayed the more painful it will be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914129/Separate-schools-gays-not-answer-claims-campaigner-Peter-Tatchell-fears-LGBT-plans-create-ghetto.html
Means we should have three polls tonight.
@JohnRentoul: Poll alert: we have a ComRes online poll in @IndyOnSunday & @TheSundayMirror tomorrow. Results here tonight http://t.co/WIQgN4C3p2
I think the evidence is there in any conflict between two masses of people since the dawn of time. I think the desire for power and control are the reasons for the conflict and religion/race/football team/sexuality is window dressing
The argument that it is something fundamentally different about Muslims, seems to me like saying black people are fundamentally different to white people, which is something you don't hear much now
People will say that religion is a choice/colour isn't, but to many people it isn't really a choice, and many people choose not to define themselves by colour anyway
My ELBOWs are trembling in anticipation
This might be an over-simplification of the situation, but the NFL is on another/very different level to college football. Robert Griffin III was a sensation in his first season at the Redskins and they implemented a read-option approach to the game successfully. I know he's had injuries (a downside to the running QB's game by the way), but I think opposition defensive coordinators have found him out and have come up with ways of neutralizing his game.
I'm not saying that there hasn't been racism towards potential black QBs and I'm sure the proportion of QBs that are black is going up. But it still seems to me that the very best QBs in the NFL are usually white. And that's just the way it is.
Lab 33.4% (-0.8)
Con 32.3 (+0.7)
UKIP 14.7 (-0.7)
LD 7.6 (+0.1)
Grn 6.4 (+0.3)
Lab lead 1.1% (-1.5)
We have Childrens Minister Edward Timpson sitting on an Ofsted report describing Rotherham's Childrens Services as 'inadequate', now there's an understatement, for eight weeks without any response.
Meanwhile the silence from the Home Office grows ever more deafening. Take a look at this report from the Home Affairs Select Committee and its current status:
Inquiry status: concluded, report published 18 October 2014
Awaiting Government Response
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/localised-grooming-follow-up/
When Keith Vaz has shown more action than the entire government you know something is very wrong.
Perhaps someone in government would at least have the decency to remove Joyce Thacker's OBE ?
Or do they think she deserves to keep it ?
That the UK has a 'right' to import as much as it wants or to have as many foreign holidays as it wants is never questioned.
It's like saying "I'll let you have the last word" and trying to affect it as a courteousy rather than the trolling it is
1st because faiths are inherently different -Islam and Judaism are lifestyle religions -'Islam' itself means 'submission'. Submission to a way of life, doing the right things to get the right result. Christianity is a religion of conscience -it is about entering into a relationship with God. You're commanded to be a good person, but that goodness is meant to come as a result and in conjunction with your Christianity, not something you do in order to secure your salvation.That's why it is less proscriptive in terms of head coverings, diet etc. There are substantial Christian minorities scattered around the world, such as the Copts in Egypt, and they are persecuted rather than the other way around.
Secondly, you're basing your theory on antecedents, rather than consequences. Your antecedent is 'a fundamentalist religious group forming a sizeable minority in a given state' -but behaviour is based on consequences more than antecedents. Therefore it depends more on the host state's response to stridently religious minorities, than the wishes of those minorities. We do what we do because the positive reinforcement of doing so outweighs the negative consequences.
You just want to beat the Govt with a stick. You don't know that nothing is being done, you just are not aware.. yet.. of what is going on behind the scenes.
The problem then is that the two approaches we have both come with unacceptable consequences - austerity within our current economy means a move towards a society few want, with worse inequality and declining public services. Yet pouring more money in isn't an option either, unless you can find a way to vastly raise revenues, which is a little more complicated than left populists think.
Neither party have managed to square the circle with their policies, which is why neither can seem to get a dominant lead in the polls, and why both are running on the fear that the other's approach has the more unacceptable consqeuences, while trying to neutralise the other's attacks by attempting to be moderate on its weak points. The party that does eventually solve the conundrum will be rewarded handsomely, but none are ready to yet.
The preface is as far as I've got so far. But that alone is pretty special, and very revealing about the Cameroons. Bear in mind Matthew D'Ancona is one of the modernisers biggest and most vocal defenders:
"What attracted me (was)... the very specific origins of the Cameroon elite: they are a social grouping which chanced upon a political project, rather than a regular political faction like New Labour.."
"In the case of David Cameron's set.. the gang came before the faction: indeed my first real contact with it was not through journalism at all, but on a group holiday in Tuscany in my twenties."
"(Cameron) and Osborne called Blair "The Master" with a combination of both mirth and filial piety."
"To add to the eccentricity of the new governing Tory elite in 2010, its ranks were suddenly swollen with leading figures from a party that, for many years, and in many ways, had treated the Conservative Party as the deadly enemy it shared with Labour, and had explored the possibility of entrenching a 'progressive majority' or a 'realignment of politics' by altering the electoral system."
That bears repeating: That had for many years, and in many ways, treated *its own party* as as the *deadly enemy* it shared with Labour.
Just fascinating. And so revealing.
And I haven't even got to page 1 yet. I can't wait to read the rest.
http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/
Secondly, yes, if the host states response is weak that is the match that lights the gunpowder for civil strife between the growing minority you speak of and the people there already
At the moment we are attracting lots of inward investment and creating large numbers of jobs and the govt is controlling and cutting its spending. All the la la la is coming from is yourself and your friends.
The point of the article is that we need to keep Labour away from the economy as the following statement from David Smith of The Sunday Times makes clear.
''In inflation-adjusted terms, 2013-14 prices, there was a massive increase in total managed expenditure over the 2000-2010 period. Spending in real terms in 2009-10, £737.3bn, was 51% higher than it was in 1999-2000, £488.5bn''
During that time a lot of people had a lot of 'unrealistic expectations about what is possible' . They will again if Labour bluff theor way to power
The inequality is especially unacceptable when its not even 'earned'.
Fatcats, in both public and private sectors, being rewarded for failure and protected rather than punished for misconduct.
"It's one rule for them and another rule for us" is a lot more widely believed than "We're all in this together".
This was the subject of detailed debate a week or so ago, with some excellent contributions if I recall from foxinsox, to the effect that globalisation is acting to reduce differences between nations at the cost of increasing internal inequality.
The reality of globalisation is that government simultaneously gets the "benefit" of being able to import cheap labour to keep their unit cost down, but gain the flipside that they are unable to significantly impose themselves on the corporations because there are always countries willing to be more lenient that your who want the revenue, this isn't an immediate effect of course, nor just economic, in the same way the various green emissions taxes are humbug, the heavily polluting industries just move to countries more desperate for the money who turn a blind eye to the pollution, we export in effect both pollution and jobs, and ultimately wealth.
At the other end of the scale, the super rich are almost immune to government as well, they can afford the best accountants and lawyers, and move between jurisdictions more or less at will. A high number of the highest earners are "perpetual travellers", carefully keeping their residency below 120 days a year in any one country, and basically paying no income tax. One famous perpetual traveller whose name escapes me used to live in 5 star hotels in the capitals of Europe, and move on every 3-4 months, finding that the tax he saved paid for his hotel bills.
You might like to explain why the UK is running the largest current deficit in history, has lower industrial production and productivity than it did in 2010, has/is borrowing hundreds of billions more than the government forecast and why the future government borrowing forecasts depend upon a record rise in household borrowing.
The other end of the scale are the tedious cheerleaders irrespective of political allegiance.
I think it is referring to a new group (influx) joining the "new governing Tory elite" in 2010. Depending on context, this could either be Blairites or, possibly, LibDems.
It's talking about why the government leadership group (even the Tory members) sometimes appears detached from the Tory Party. I don't think it is suggesting that, before 2010, the wholly-Tory leadership regarded its own part as the enemy.
His wife (an American heiress) lives in Switzerland, while he is based in the UK, weekends in Switzerland, but spends less than 90 days in any one country.
Given how rich he is it's frankly immoral organise your affairs in this way
(And, FWIW, I reckon it's a pretty miserable lifestyle anyway)
good luck with that AR.
Anyhoos:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/80335000/jpg/_80335416_80335215.jpg
Posted on Al-Beeb!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXCEdrnaFlY
And life and reality moves on....
Labour activists have been told not to talk to voters about the economy #UKIP http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/predictions/politics/11352668/Dont-mention-the-economy-Labour-activists-told.html …
You reckon if we swapped the number of Muslims in Europe/the World with that of another religion there would be significantly less extremism?
We'd all get on just fine if only those 1.2bn Muslims in the world were Jewish instead?
Not everyone wants free speech or democracy in our educational institutions.
Cartoonists who drew Mohammed were murdered by Muslims who after proclaimed they had avenged the prophet. I think there might just be a connection to Islam.
I wonder who gave the manufacturer the idea?
I also note that Ed in his speech today was full-throated pro-mass immigration.
One social networking user said: "Rampant xenophobe David Starkey calls @mehdirhasan 'Ahmed' on #bbcqt - you couldn't make it up. Could the BBC just stop inviting this idiot?"
While another added: "Time to stop giving David Starkey a platform. Addressing Mehdi Hasan as Ahmed is not on, on or off national television. #bbcqt".
Of course, Mehdi Hassan can call non-Muslims "animals", and they don't call for him to be banned.