In terms of killer lines, how's this one from the President of the European Parliament: "Britain belongs to the EU." These EU politicians do live in a very different world, where they seem to think the EU is a federation already, and countries with centuries of histories are just component parts. One of the things that is most pushing me towards voting out is the attitude towards Cameron's renegotiation they are showing. There's no respect for his democratic mandate of winning re-election on this platform, they talk about the process of getting public consent for government as "pandering to the gallery", and they accuse any practical support for the subsidiarity principle as being "anti-European". It really does need fundamental reform so these people know the peoples of Europe are their bosses, not the other way round.
Lets face it, labour should have held off their leadership election for a while until they decide on a direction of travel.
The tories have never had to do this, and they never will, they are the party of the establishment, and always will be will.
But, what is Labour for? Until they decide that as a party, then how can they elect a leader when they don't know what he/she should represent?
In 2025 they will represent a party that has not fallen apart, that has not been riven by sleaze, that presents a united front because their internal divisions won't be plastered over the front pages every day, and, perhaps under a known unknown candidate (or an unknown unknown one), they will win.
As did New Lab in '97 in a similar environment.
The rest, in the interim, is details.
In 1997, the Cons were reduced to 165 seats. It is very possible that in 2020, that Labour could be reduced to less than this.
Would Labour die, split or be replaced as it could take them another 3 elections to recover.
However, if Liz K is chosen as leader, then we could well see Corbyn's left and the unions split away and form a new party.
You think? I just didn't get the impression any of them had the passion to sink the gravy boat, not even Corbyn. And they did not see that far apart, even Kendall.
They all want:
A fairer Britain, with more equality of outcomes as well as opportunity.
Not to have to make hard choices about what benefits the state can provide.
Not to have to think too hard about how the United Kingdom will earn its living in the world because this has difficult implications.
Not to have to think about how they make Labour relevant to Scotland which has its own social democratic party, thanks very much.
There are a significant number in the UK who will sign up to this, 9m at the last election. But creating a majority for it is going to be incredibly hard. You are basically relying on your opponents making mistakes and handing it to you by default.
Slackbladder This world is not built for 7 billion plus people...Can you tell the Pope that..
The world almost certainly can cope with 7bn + people, given decent government. Once countries cease to be poor, birthrates naturally level off.
It's not quite that simple, and there's a lagging effect which is why we are seeing a rapidish rise in population at the moment.
Essentially as countries become richer, populations get better access to nutrition and healthcare.
This causes mortality rates (especially infant mortality) to decline sharply.
Over a period of time, as people realise that mortality rates are sustainably lower, they don't need to breed as much in order to produce the optimal number of surviving adults. Consequently, birth rates decline - but until they do, there is a rapid increase in population
Lets face it, labour should have held off their leadership election for a while until they decide on a direction of travel.
The tories have never had to do this, and they never will, they are the party of the establishment, and always will be will.
But, what is Labour for? Until they decide that as a party, then how can they elect a leader when they don't know what he/she should represent?
In 2025 they will represent a party that has not fallen apart, that has not been riven by sleaze, that presents a united front because their internal divisions won't be plastered over the front pages every day, and, perhaps under a known unknown candidate (or an unknown unknown one), they will win.
As did New Lab in '97 in a similar environment.
The rest, in the interim, is details.
In 1997, the Cons were reduced to 165 seats. It is very possible that in 2020, that Labour could be reduced to less than this.
Would Labour die, split or be replaced as it could take them another 3 elections to recover.
However, if Liz K is chosen as leader, then we could well see Corbyn's left and the unions split away and form a new party.
You think? I just didn't get the impression any of them had the passion to sink the gravy boat, not even Corbyn. And they did not see that far apart, even Kendall.
They all want:
A fairer Britain, with more equality of outcomes as well as opportunity.
Not to have to make hard choices about what benefits the state can provide.
Not to have to think too hard about how the United Kingdom will earn its living in the world because this has difficult implications.
Not to have to think about how they make Labour relevant to Scotland which has its own social democratic party, thanks very much.
There are a significant number in the UK who will sign up to this, 9m at the last election. But creating a majority for it is going to be incredibly hard. You are basically relying on your opponents making mistakes and handing it to you by default.
The UK doesn't earn its living now, and won't even if the Tories win the next two elections. It gets by on the great majority of us leeching off a relatively small number of financial dealers and an even smaller number of software designers (who will emigrate soon). Every year the proportion of us who are, in effect, parasites, grows larger. But no government is going to do what's really needed, and abolish pensions to those of us who already have them. Or, indeed, shoot the nine million out of hand (although you may be happy to join Paul Staines in offering to make a start).
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
You've said that b4. There aren't enough racists to get UKIP into second place.
What a stupid comment!
So, nobody other than a racist would ever vote UKIP? What about all the people from ethnic minorities who not only vote UKIP but stand as UKIP candidates for election?
I am afraid Squareroot has a history of such arrogant stupidity when it comes to UKIP. Thankfully he is in a minority amongst Tory (and Labour) posters on here who - with a few notable exceptions - are generally are rather more intelligent.
So quick to take the bait. Of course if you read it properly it doesn't say that all Kippers are racists, but then again a hell of a lot of KIppers are racists, just Google UKIP and racist ands see what you get.. there is a history of racist candidates having to stand down either because they've been caught out or standing down because of racism in the party,
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
It's not really a high quality leadership race is it....
You wouldn't think you were flush with talent if this were just for Chair of a constituency party. To think that any of these people aspires to control our fates (and have the nuclear missile codes!).... Eek.
None of these people gets beyond the primary issue the voters will have with Labour in 2020, as they had in 2015:
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
You've said that b4. There aren't enough racists to get UKIP into second place.
What a stupid comment!
So, nobody other than a racist would ever vote UKIP? What about all the people from ethnic minorities who not only vote UKIP but stand as UKIP candidates for election?
I am afraid Squareroot has a history of such arrogant stupidity when it comes to UKIP. Thankfully he is in a minority amongst Tory (and Labour) posters on here who - with a few notable exceptions - are generally are rather more intelligent.
So quick to take the bait. Of course if you read it properly it doesn't say that all Kippers are racists, but then again a hell of a lot of KIppers are racists, just Google UKIP and racist ands see what you get.. there is a history of racist candidates having to stand down either because they've been caught out or standing down because of racism in the party,
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
Mr. F, there was an excellent stats video linked to on this site a year or two ago indicating birth rates are levelling off everywhere, and the global population will plateau around 11bn or so, I think.
In terms of killer lines, how's this one from the President of the European Parliament: "Britain belongs to the EU." These EU politicians do live in a very different world, where they seem to think the EU is a federation already, and countries with centuries of histories are just component parts. One of the things that is most pushing me towards voting out is the attitude towards Cameron's renegotiation they are showing. There's no respect for his democratic mandate of winning re-election on this platform, they talk about the process of getting public consent for government as "pandering to the gallery", and they accuse any practical support for the subsidiarity principle as being "anti-European". It really does need fundamental reform so these people know the peoples of Europe are their bosses, not the other way round.
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
You've said that b4. There aren't enough racists to get UKIP into second place.
What a stupid comment!
So, nobody other than a racist would ever vote UKIP? What about all the people from ethnic minorities who not only vote UKIP but stand as UKIP candidates for election?
I am afraid Squareroot has a history of such arrogant stupidity when it comes to UKIP. Thankfully he is in a minority amongst Tory (and Labour) posters on here who - with a few notable exceptions - are generally are rather more intelligent.
So quick to take the bait. Of course if you read it properly it doesn't say that all Kippers are racists, but then again a hell of a lot of KIppers are racists, just Google UKIP and racist ands see what you get.. there is a history of racist candidates having to stand down either because they've been caught out or standing down because of racism in the party,
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
To be fair to UKIP, it speaks well of them that they take racism in their party so seriously to make sure they promptly kick out entryists from the BNP. Not all parties do that: Labour have former BNP members standing them, for example.
Mr. F, there was an excellent stats video linked to on this site a year or two ago indicating birth rates are levelling off everywhere, and the global population will plateau around 11bn or so, I think.
To understand what’s at stake regarding the Mediterranean, the numbers in World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision: Volume II: Demographic Profiles, which was published in 2013 by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, should enlighten you.
The United Nations’ population projections for the continent of Africa are on p. 10 of the paper document (p. 36 of the PDF); the data for the continent of Europe are on p. 23 (p. 49 of the PDF).
In theory Europe will decline slightly, whilst Africa will rise from 400m to 4bn.
Now, of course, these UN projections are based on the highly arguable premise that the emigration rate out of Africa will decline steadily. The million or so Africans currently massed in Libya waiting to set sail for the EU, where they will invite their relatives back home to join them, would probably not agree with that heroic assumption.
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
You've said that b4. There aren't enough racists to get UKIP into second place.
What a stupid comment!
So, nobody other than a racist would ever vote UKIP? What about all the people from ethnic minorities who not only vote UKIP but stand as UKIP candidates for election?
I am afraid Squareroot has a history of such arrogant stupidity when it comes to UKIP. Thankfully he is in a minority amongst Tory (and Labour) posters on here who - with a few notable exceptions - are generally are rather more intelligent.
So quick to take the bait. Of course if you read it properly it doesn't say that all Kippers are racists, but then again a hell of a lot of KIppers are racists, just Google UKIP and racist ands see what you get.. there is a history of racist candidates having to stand down either because they've been caught out or standing down because of racism in the party,
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
I find a lot of my Jewish and other ethnic minority friends have a vitriolic hatred of UKIP which I put down to racism. As John Stuart Mill understood when you have democracy in a multi-ethnic society then parties do tend to coalesce around a block vote, why it should be acceptable, indeed laudatory, for some to support affirmative action or increased immigration of their ethnic kin and not for others to do so perhaps you can explain.
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
You've said that b4. There aren't enough racists to get UKIP into second place.
What a stupid comment!
So, nobody other than a racist would ever vote UKIP? What about all the people from ethnic minorities who not only vote UKIP but stand as UKIP candidates for election?
I am afraid Squareroot has a history of such arrogant stupidity when it comes to UKIP. Thankfully he is in a minority amongst Tory (and Labour) posters on here who - with a few notable exceptions - are generally are rather more intelligent.
So quick to take the bait. Of course if you read it properly it doesn't say that all Kippers are racists, but then again a hell of a lot of KIppers are racists, just Google UKIP and racist ands see what you get.. there is a history of racist candidates having to stand down either because they've been caught out or standing down because of racism in the party,
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
I find a lot of my Jewish and other ethnic minority friends have a vitriolic hatred of UKIP which I put down to racism. As John Stuart Mill understood when you have democracy in a multi-ethnic society then parties do tend to coalesce around a block vote, why it should be acceptable, indeed laudatory, for some to support affirmative action or increased immigration of their ethnic kin and not for others to do so perhaps you can explain.
Do you seriously expect us to believe you have Jewish or ethnic minority friends?
Mr. F, there was an excellent stats video linked to on this site a year or two ago indicating birth rates are levelling off everywhere, and the global population will plateau around 11bn or so, I think.
Backbench business: Ian Mearns Business and etc: Ian Wright Culture: Jessie Norman Defence: Julian Lewis Education: Neil Carmichel Environmental Audit: Irranca Davies Foreign: Crispin Blunt Health: Wollaston Home: Vaz Int Dev: Twigg Justing: Bob Neil Petitions: Helen Jones PAC: Meg Hillier Science: Nicola Blackwood Work and Pension: Frank Field
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
You've said that b4. There aren't enough racists to get UKIP into second place.
What a stupid comment!
So, nobody other than a racist would ever vote UKIP? What about all the people from ethnic minorities who not only vote UKIP but stand as UKIP candidates for election?
I am afraid Squareroot has a history of such arrogant stupidity when it comes to UKIP. Thankfully he is in a minority amongst Tory (and Labour) posters on here who - with a few notable exceptions - are generally are rather more intelligent.
So quick to take the bait. Of course if you read it properly it doesn't say that all Kippers are racists, but then again a hell of a lot of KIppers are racists, just Google UKIP and racist ands see what you get.. there is a history of racist candidates having to stand down either because they've been caught out or standing down because of racism in the party,
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
To be fair to UKIP, it speaks well of them that they take racism in their party so seriously to make sure they promptly kick out entryists from the BNP. Not all parties do that: Labour have former BNP members standing them, for example.
UKIP, because of their perceived policies, have a bigger problem with it than the other parties. The response of kicking out any extreme right wingers only kicks in when they get publicity.
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
You've said that b4. There aren't enough racists to get UKIP into second place.
What a stupid comment!
So, nobody other than a racist would ever vote UKIP? What about all the people from ethnic minorities who not only vote UKIP but stand as UKIP candidates for election?
I am afraid Squareroot has a history of such arrogant stupidity when it comes to UKIP. Thankfully he is in a minority amongst Tory (and Labour) posters on here who - with a few notable exceptions - are generally are rather more intelligent.
So quick to take the bait. Of course if you read it properly it doesn't say that all Kippers are racists, but then again a hell of a lot of KIppers are racists, just Google UKIP and racist ands see what you get.. there is a history of racist candidates having to stand down either because they've been caught out or standing down because of racism in the party,
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
I find a lot of my Jewish and other ethnic minority friends have a vitriolic hatred of UKIP which I put down to racism. As John Stuart Mill understood when you have democracy in a multi-ethnic society then parties do tend to coalesce around a block vote, why it should be acceptable, indeed laudatory, for some to support affirmative action or increased immigration of their ethnic kin and not for others to do so perhaps you can explain.
Do you seriously expect us to believe you have Jewish or ethnic minority friends?
I have more Russian friends admittedly, but we all know they are fair game.
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
You've said that b4. There aren't enough racists to get UKIP into second place.
What a stupid comment!
So, nobody other than a racist would ever vote UKIP? What about all the people from ethnic minorities who not only vote UKIP but stand as UKIP candidates for election?
I am afraid Squareroot has a history of such arrogant stupidity when it comes to UKIP. Thankfully he is in a minority amongst Tory (and Labour) posters on here who - with a few notable exceptions - are generally are rather more intelligent.
So quick to take the bait. Of course if you read it properly it doesn't say that all Kippers are racists, but then again a hell of a lot of KIppers are racists, just Google UKIP and racist ands see what you get.. there is a history of racist candidates having to stand down either because they've been caught out or standing down because of racism in the party,
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
To be fair to UKIP, it speaks well of them that they take racism in their party so seriously to make sure they promptly kick out entryists from the BNP. Not all parties do that: Labour have former BNP members standing them, for example.
UKIP, because of their perceived policies, have a bigger problem with it than the other parties. The response of kicking out any extreme right wingers only kicks in when they get publicity.
Racists come from all over the political spectrum. Do you have examples of UKIP not kicking out racists when it has been a low publicity affair?
Mr. Song, but it also, I suspect, cements the conviction of the faithful. Not only do those who want curbs on immigration see no action (and often contempt) from the major parties, they then see the only party which does want serious curbs and seems willing to take any necessary action [even pulling up the drawbridge] to achieve it get attacked as racist, with the perception being that concern about immigration = racism (a lovely legacy, one of many, from the Blair years).
Backbench business: Ian Mearns Business and etc: Ian Wright Culture: Jessie Norman Defence: Julian Lewis Education: Neil Carmichel Environmental Audit: Irranca Davies Foreign: Crispin Blunt Health: Wollaston Home: Vaz Int Dev: Twigg Justing: Bob Neil Petitions: Helen Jones PAC: Meg Hillier Science: Nicola Blackwood Work and Pension: Frank Field
Good to see that the Science Chair has a higher degree in musicology. An 'ology'! Maureen Lipman would be ever so proud.
Mr. Song, but it also, I suspect, cements the conviction of the faithful. Not only do those who want curbs on immigration see no action (and often contempt) from the major parties, they then see the only party which does want serious curbs and seems willing to take any necessary action [even pulling up the drawbridge] to achieve it get attacked as racist, with the perception being that concern about immigration = racism (a lovely legacy, one of many, from the Blair years).
I seem to remember our Prime Minister aiming to reduce immigration to tens of thousand from over a hundred thousand. OK, so he's not very effective. Would Farage be effective should he ever be given the chance?
Mr. F, there was an excellent stats video linked to on this site a year or two ago indicating birth rates are levelling off everywhere, and the global population will plateau around 11bn or so, I think.
Looking ahead to 2063:
"Population: 9 billion. All Borg."
We've got to the point where the Earth is adding c. the same number of people a year, rather than the same percentage. So at present 10-11bn looks likely.
Don't know what video was posted, but this is one of my favourites by Hans Rosling:
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
You've said that b4. There aren't enough racists to get UKIP into second place.
What a stupid comment!
So, nobody other than a racist would ever vote UKIP? What about all the people from ethnic minorities who not only vote UKIP but stand as UKIP candidates for election?
I am afraid Squareroot has a history of such arrogant stupidity when it comes to UKIP. Thankfully he is in a minority amongst Tory (and Labour) posters on here who - with a few notable exceptions - are generally are rather more intelligent.
So quick to take the bait. Of course if you read it properly it doesn't say that all Kippers are racists, but then again a hell of a lot of KIppers are racists, just Google UKIP and racist ands see what you get.. there is a history of racist candidates having to stand down either because they've been caught out or standing down because of racism in the party,
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
To be fair to UKIP, it speaks well of them that they take racism in their party so seriously to make sure they promptly kick out entryists from the BNP. Not all parties do that: Labour have former BNP members standing them, for example.
UKIP, because of their perceived policies, have a bigger problem with it than the other parties. The response of kicking out any extreme right wingers only kicks in when they get publicity.
Racists come from all over the political spectrum. Do you have examples of UKIP not kicking out racists when it has been a low publicity affair?
Er, if they didn't get any publicity how would I know about it? Do you have an example of UKIP kicking out anybody before they were 'outed' by Twitter or similar?
Mr. Song, but it also, I suspect, cements the conviction of the faithful. Not only do those who want curbs on immigration see no action (and often contempt) from the major parties, they then see the only party which does want serious curbs and seems willing to take any necessary action [even pulling up the drawbridge] to achieve it get attacked as racist, with the perception being that concern about immigration = racism (a lovely legacy, one of many, from the Blair years).
What is "racism" anyway? I doubt if people who advocated job quotas for ethnic minorities in the civil service or have a hashtag saying "kill all white men" see themselves as racists, but rather as expressing good and righteous sentiments.
Mr. Song, but it also, I suspect, cements the conviction of the faithful. Not only do those who want curbs on immigration see no action (and often contempt) from the major parties, they then see the only party which does want serious curbs and seems willing to take any necessary action [even pulling up the drawbridge] to achieve it get attacked as racist, with the perception being that concern about immigration = racism (a lovely legacy, one of many, from the Blair years).
What is "racism" anyway? I doubt if people who advocated job quotas for ethnic minorities in the civil service or have a hashtag saying "kill all white men" see themselves as racists, but rather as expressing good and righteous sentiments.
Maybe, but should parties be concerned with what people believe to be right or should they be concerned whether their members views fit with what they consider to be correct? The label is just shorthand and is often nisapplied.
What odds on Labour coming third (behind UKIP, presumably) next time? Hard to see anyone but UKIP getting a referendum bounce.
I think it pretty slim. 5 years is a very long time in politics. If tbe referendum goes for out then UKIP are redundant, if for in they are defeated. The kippers have a few fanatics but not of the same order as the SNP.
There are millions of economically centrist, socially conservative, eurosceptic voters, whose views aren't welcome to the leaders of the main political parties. Either they'll vote for UKIP, or they'll vote for some other party that represents them.
It seems to me that this is the main locus of potential opposition to Cameron because his government is economically hawkish, socially liberal and eurofriendly. Labour is almost impossible to define against these yardsticks because they are economically irresponsible, not really socially liberal (all the authoritarianism and tolerance of green and Muslim fascism), and hopelessly divided on Yerp.
They are in short so batshit crazy they defy definition, which is not a good place to be when you aspire to government.
I switched on for the leaders debate expecting to underwhelmed. But not by as much as I was. Blimey, is this it from Labour? Unless there's a complete sea change then it has to be Cooper as a safe, fairly competent LOTO for five years and then clawing back a dozen or so seats before the next push.
Mr. Song, but it also, I suspect, cements the conviction of the faithful. Not only do those who want curbs on immigration see no action (and often contempt) from the major parties, they then see the only party which does want serious curbs and seems willing to take any necessary action [even pulling up the drawbridge] to achieve it get attacked as racist, with the perception being that concern about immigration = racism (a lovely legacy, one of many, from the Blair years).
What is "racism" anyway? I doubt if people who advocated job quotas for ethnic minorities in the civil service or have a hashtag saying "kill all white men" see themselves as racists, but rather as expressing good and righteous sentiments.
Don't forget both Greg Dyke, calling the BBC, and Emma Thompson, calling the county of Devon, 'hideously white'.
I switched on for the leaders debate expecting to underwhelmed. But not by as much as I was. Blimey, is this it from Labour? Unless there's a complete sea change then it has to be Cooper as a safe, fairly competent LOTO for five years and then clawing back a dozen or so seats before the next push.
Perhaps someone should start a campaign to write in Harman.
I may be wrong, but I sense that active discrimation based on skin colour and 'genetics' is dying out. The central crusade against such prejudice (literally, prejudging according to physical appearance) that was front and centre stage from c.1960 to c.1995 has now morphed into a proxy for culture wars.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Mr. Song, but it also, I suspect, cements the conviction of the faithful. Not only do those who want curbs on immigration see no action (and often contempt) from the major parties, they then see the only party which does want serious curbs and seems willing to take any necessary action [even pulling up the drawbridge] to achieve it get attacked as racist, with the perception being that concern about immigration = racism (a lovely legacy, one of many, from the Blair years).
What is "racism" anyway? I doubt if people who advocated job quotas for ethnic minorities in the civil service or have a hashtag saying "kill all white men" see themselves as racists, but rather as expressing good and righteous sentiments.
Don't forget both Greg Dyke, calling the BBC, and Emma Thompson, calling the county of Devon, 'hideously white'.
Yes, imagine if the word 'black' had been substituted for 'white' and used in a description of some other organisation or place.
Nick Robinson not impressed by the Labour leadership debate, either:
"MISSING: A BIG IDEA. LOST BY LABOUR PARTY. IF FOUND PLEASE INFORM PARTY BEFORE SEPTEMBER. REWARD - POWER (MAYBE)" Something was very obviously missing from last night's TV debate between the candidates for Labour leader. It was an election-winning 'Big Idea'. By this I don't mean a headline-grabbing policy initiative, such as cutting tuition fees or introducing a 'Mansion Tax' to pay for increased health spending. The party just tried that and failed - spectacularly. I mean an over-arching critique of what's wrong with Britain and how Labour might put it right and of what's wrong with the party and how the next leader might fix it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33180821
I may be wrong, but I sense that active discrimation based on skin colour and 'genetics' is dying out. The central crusade against such prejudice (literally, prejudging according to physical appearance) that was front and centre stage from c.1960 to c.1995 has now morphed into a proxy for culture wars.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Racism is still a problem. Down but not out - the low hanging fruit have gone, the drive for the line ever more difficult.
Something was very obviously missing from last night's TV debate between the candidates for Labour leader. It was an election-winning 'Big Idea'.... an over-arching critique of what's wrong with Britain
Which is to presuppose that there's something so wrong with Britain we need Labour, uniquely, in power to fix it.
The trouble is Labour does not fix things. It fecks things up. And then it needs the Tories in to fix them, so Labour can ooze and slime its way back into power and feck them all over again.
I may be wrong, but I sense that active discrimation based on skin colour and 'genetics' is dying out. The central crusade against such prejudice (literally, prejudging according to physical appearance) that was front and centre stage from c.1960 to c.1995 has now morphed into a proxy for culture wars.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Racism is still a problem. Down but not out - the low hanging fruit have gone, the drive for the line ever more difficult.
Where, and in what way, do you sense racism is a problem in the UK?
The only places that it leaps to mind as being so are in the very elderly, some football terraces and the more sectarian parts of our cities, esp. Glasgow, Liverpool and Belfast.
I may be wrong, but I sense that active discrimation based on skin colour and 'genetics' is dying out. The central crusade against such prejudice (literally, prejudging according to physical appearance) that was front and centre stage from c.1960 to c.1995 has now morphed into a proxy for culture wars.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Racism is still a problem. Down but not out - the low hanging fruit have gone, the drive for the line ever more difficult.
Where, and in what way, do you sense racism is a problem in the UK?
The only places that it leaps to mind as being so are in the very elderly, some football terraces and the more sectarian parts of our cities, esp. Glasgow, Liverpool and Belfast.
Lest we forget but five years ago a vile Labour MP won his seat after making the whites angry.
Mr. Song, but it also, I suspect, cements the conviction of the faithful. Not only do those who want curbs on immigration see no action (and often contempt) from the major parties, they then see the only party which does want serious curbs and seems willing to take any necessary action [even pulling up the drawbridge] to achieve it get attacked as racist, with the perception being that concern about immigration = racism (a lovely legacy, one of many, from the Blair years).
What is "racism" anyway? I doubt if people who advocated job quotas for ethnic minorities in the civil service or have a hashtag saying "kill all white men" see themselves as racists, but rather as expressing good and righteous sentiments.
Maybe, but should parties be concerned with what people believe to be right or should they be concerned whether their members views fit with what they consider to be correct? The label is just shorthand and is often nisapplied.
Yes, but in what way was that cultural rather than ethnic? Ethnicity becomes the differentiator and the shorthand, and insults directed at that race as that 'shorthand' thereby give rise to the racism label, but isn't the root-cause of the problem.
My challenge would be, if the communities of varying skin-colour in Rotherham were culturally integrated within one community, identifying as British and English and coexisting next to one another, would there still be a problem?
He makes a few good points but that article's a good example of what's wrong with the BBC's coverage of politics. Robinson presumes to define the terms of the debate. It's not that he tells people what to think; it's that he tells them how to think. It's wholly inappropriate for the national broadcaster.
Yes, but in what way was that cultural rather than ethnic? Ethnicity becomes the differentiator and the shorthand, and insults directed at that race as that 'shorthand' thereby give rise to the racism label, but isn't the root-cause of the problem.
My challenge would be, if the communities of varying skin-colour in Rotherham were culturally integrated within one community, identifying as British and English and coexisting next to one another, would there still be a problem?
I think that racism based upon feelings (variously) of victimhood, bad conscience, liberal guilt, and a desire for revenge for historical injustice is alive and well.
I may be wrong, but I sense that active discrimation based on skin colour and 'genetics' is dying out. The central crusade against such prejudice (literally, prejudging according to physical appearance) that was front and centre stage from c.1960 to c.1995 has now morphed into a proxy for culture wars.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Racism is still a problem. Down but not out - the low hanging fruit have gone, the drive for the line ever more difficult.
Where, and in what way, do you sense racism is a problem in the UK?
The only places that it leaps to mind as being so are in the very elderly, some football terraces and the more sectarian parts of our cities, esp. Glasgow, Liverpool and Belfast.
I was told by a friend the other day that he preferred living in Toronto to London because he never got shouted at for being a "paki" in Toronto. It shocked me that this had happened in London, because I've never witnessed it, but he stated it would often be by drunk white men after a night out.
I may be wrong, but I sense that active discrimation based on skin colour and 'genetics' is dying out. The central crusade against such prejudice (literally, prejudging according to physical appearance) that was front and centre stage from c.1960 to c.1995 has now morphed into a proxy for culture wars.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Racism is still a problem. Down but not out - the low hanging fruit have gone, the drive for the line ever more difficult.
Where, and in what way, do you sense racism is a problem in the UK?
The only places that it leaps to mind as being so are in the very elderly, some football terraces and the more sectarian parts of our cities, esp. Glasgow, Liverpool and Belfast.
An obvious starting point is to ask people themselves.
16% of people say they hold some views which are racist. 27% say they are at least a little prejudiced against people from other races. And, of course, those that do not self-identify would have to be added.
Norman 221 Stuart 157 Green 93 Collins 87 McCartney 42 Norman 240 Stuart 164 Green 97 Collins 90 (nr 9) Norman 268 Stuart 178 Green 122 (nr 23) Norman 319 Stuart 211 (nr 38)
Lewis 260 Benyon 208 Stewart 121 Lewis 314 Benyon 242 (nr 33)
I may be wrong, but I sense that active discrimation based on skin colour and 'genetics' is dying out. The central crusade against such prejudice (literally, prejudging according to physical appearance) that was front and centre stage from c.1960 to c.1995 has now morphed into a proxy for culture wars.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Racism is still a problem. Down but not out - the low hanging fruit have gone, the drive for the line ever more difficult.
Where, and in what way, do you sense racism is a problem in the UK?
The only places that it leaps to mind as being so are in the very elderly, some football terraces and the more sectarian parts of our cities, esp. Glasgow, Liverpool and Belfast.
An obvious starting point is to ask people themselves.
16% of people say they hold some views which are racist. 27% say they are at least a little prejudiced against people from other races. And, of course, those that do not self-identify would have to be added.
Fair enough. About 15-20% seems about right. I'd say that's quite encouraging. Worth noting only 1% say 'very predjudiced'.
The flipside of those stats is that some respondees may be interpreting the word 'racism' more broadly, in the same way that people like Greg Dyke and Emma Thompson do.
I may be wrong, but I sense that active discrimation based on skin colour and 'genetics' is dying out. The central crusade against such prejudice (literally, prejudging according to physical appearance) that was front and centre stage from c.1960 to c.1995 has now morphed into a proxy for culture wars.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Racism is still a problem. Down but not out - the low hanging fruit have gone, the drive for the line ever more difficult.
Where, and in what way, do you sense racism is a problem in the UK?
The only places that it leaps to mind as being so are in the very elderly, some football terraces and the more sectarian parts of our cities, esp. Glasgow, Liverpool and Belfast.
An obvious starting point is to ask people themselves.
16% of people say they hold some views which are racist. 27% say they are at least a little prejudiced against people from other races. And, of course, those that do not self-identify would have to be added.
It's the 50th question in the survey or so, by that point you're just clicking anything to bag your free points.
I may be wrong, but I sense that active discrimation based on skin colour and 'genetics' is dying out. The central crusade against such prejudice (literally, prejudging according to physical appearance) that was front and centre stage from c.1960 to c.1995 has now morphed into a proxy for culture wars.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Racism is still a problem. Down but not out - the low hanging fruit have gone, the drive for the line ever more difficult.
Where, and in what way, do you sense racism is a problem in the UK?
The only places that it leaps to mind as being so are in the very elderly, some football terraces and the more sectarian parts of our cities, esp. Glasgow, Liverpool and Belfast.
An obvious starting point is to ask people themselves.
16% of people say they hold some views which are racist. 27% say they are at least a little prejudiced against people from other races. And, of course, those that do not self-identify would have to be added.
Fair enough. About 15-20% seems about right. I'd say that's quite encouraging. Worth noting only 1% say 'very predjudiced'.
The flipside of those stats is that some respondees may be interpreting the word 'racism' more broadly, in the same way that people like Greg Dyke and Emma Thompson do.
I would say the number in the latter group is likely 1%.
If racism weren't a problem, we'd have difficulty justifying our race relations legislation (don't be fooled; 90% of the Equality Act covering race re-enacted the older legislation) but its repeal would be an unmitigated disaster.
I am pleased with the progress, but we aren't finished yet.
Jon Sopel @BBCJonSopel After the Rachel #Dolezal circus, a white woman wanting to be black, America wakes to vile white man who kills black people #Charleston
Yes a vile act. But Sopel's use could be rascist? Inflammatory? Use of the word "vile"? Or just fair comment? But is it appropriate from the BBC?
Jon Sopel @BBCJonSopel After the Rachel #Dolezal circus, a white woman wanting to be black, America wakes to vile white man who kills black people #Charleston
Yes a vile act. But Sopel's use could be rascist? Inflammatory? Use of the word "vile"? Or just fair comment? But is it appropriate from the BBC?
Pretty sure using the term vile to describe a mass murderer is on safe ground.
Party support is broadly the same as at the general election, with the Conservatives on 39 per cent, Labour on 30, Liberal Democrats on nine, Ukip on eight and the Greens on six.
Mr. Eagles, AV leads to depression, loneliness, and Ed Miliband.
AV is awesome, the Conservative Party uses a form of AV to elect their leader.
I feel the need for a thread that helps extols the virtues of AV to you.
I think we should have an AV post just to stop you threatening us with it every day. It's not like the point of the article at the top survives more than a hundred comments anyway...
Comments
I Always Nibble Auntie's Lovely Pepper-Mints?
They all want:
A fairer Britain, with more equality of outcomes as well as opportunity.
Not to have to make hard choices about what benefits the state can provide.
Not to have to think too hard about how the United Kingdom will earn its living in the world because this has difficult implications.
Not to have to think about how they make Labour relevant to Scotland which has its own social democratic party, thanks very much.
There are a significant number in the UK who will sign up to this, 9m at the last election. But creating a majority for it is going to be incredibly hard. You are basically relying on your opponents making mistakes and handing it to you by default.
Essentially as countries become richer, populations get better access to nutrition and healthcare.
This causes mortality rates (especially infant mortality) to decline sharply.
Over a period of time, as people realise that mortality rates are sustainably lower, they don't need to breed as much in order to produce the optimal number of surviving adults. Consequently, birth rates decline - but until they do, there is a rapid increase in population
but as I say, not enough of them to get UKIP into second place..
Right now, the editor of the sun website, the editor of conhome and I are discussing the correct way to say "f*ck off and die" in Latin
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33173552
Mark Wallace has gone for "Efutue et morere"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2973998/Six-Ukip-candidates-links-racist-groups-Party-launches-probe-BNP-cartoon-stereotyping-minorities-posted-online.html
Some of the comments are intresting
Absolutely fascinating and should be compulsory viewing for anyone planning to weigh in on this debate :-)
Edited extra bit: aye, Mr. 1000, that's the one. Surprising and interesting in equal measure.
The United Nations’ population projections for the continent of Africa are on p. 10 of the paper document (p. 36 of the PDF); the data for the continent of Europe are on p. 23 (p. 49 of the PDF).
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Volume-II-Demographic-Profiles.pdf
In theory Europe will decline slightly, whilst Africa will rise from 400m to 4bn.
Now, of course, these UN projections are based on the highly arguable premise that the emigration rate out of Africa will decline steadily. The million or so Africans currently massed in Libya waiting to set sail for the EU, where they will invite their relatives back home to join them, would probably not agree with that heroic assumption.
"Population: 9 billion. All Borg."
Backbench business: Ian Mearns
Business and etc: Ian Wright
Culture: Jessie Norman
Defence: Julian Lewis
Education: Neil Carmichel
Environmental Audit: Irranca Davies
Foreign: Crispin Blunt
Health: Wollaston
Home: Vaz
Int Dev: Twigg
Justing: Bob Neil
Petitions: Helen Jones
PAC: Meg Hillier
Science: Nicola Blackwood
Work and Pension: Frank Field
"David Tredinnick an 'outlier on the spectrum of reason'"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/professor-brian-cox-brands-astrologybelieving-tory-mp-david-tredinnick-an-outlier-on-the-spectrum-of-reason-10088421.html
Dr. Parma, cheers.
Biggest committee walkover looks like health - Sarah Wollaston won 532 to 64, over David Tredinnick.
As predicted in the face of the panickers!
Several MPs can claim to be related to royalty, but AFAIK he is the only one related to a Saint.
OK, so he's not very effective. Would Farage be effective should he ever be given the chance?
Don't know what video was posted, but this is one of my favourites by Hans Rosling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM
I have a target of sharing a jacuzzi with Olivia Wilde and Jennifer Morrison. Which is lovely, but without the means, it's never going to happen.
Do you have an example of UKIP kicking out anybody before they were 'outed' by Twitter or similar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ePoiRW5Ho
via Guido - Looks as if Burnham has a vote winning slogan.
The label is just shorthand and is often nisapplied. Is our Prime Minister powerless?
Good luck with the jacuzzi.
They are in short so batshit crazy they defy definition, which is not a good place to be when you aspire to government.
Given culture is about values, ethics and attitudes, it makes it a real area of moral hazard.
Mr. Royale, I agree with you entirely. Incidentally, Devon's splendid.
"MISSING: A BIG IDEA. LOST BY LABOUR PARTY. IF FOUND PLEASE INFORM PARTY BEFORE SEPTEMBER. REWARD - POWER (MAYBE)"
Something was very obviously missing from last night's TV debate between the candidates for Labour leader. It was an election-winning 'Big Idea'.
By this I don't mean a headline-grabbing policy initiative, such as cutting tuition fees or introducing a 'Mansion Tax' to pay for increased health spending. The party just tried that and failed - spectacularly. I mean an over-arching critique of what's wrong with Britain and how Labour might put it right and of what's wrong with the party and how the next leader might fix it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33180821
The trouble is Labour does not fix things. It fecks things up. And then it needs the Tories in to fix them, so Labour can ooze and slime its way back into power and feck them all over again.
The only places that it leaps to mind as being so are in the very elderly, some football terraces and the more sectarian parts of our cities, esp. Glasgow, Liverpool and Belfast.
My challenge would be, if the communities of varying skin-colour in Rotherham were culturally integrated within one community, identifying as British and English and coexisting next to one another, would there still be a problem?
I have to own up though. When I read that I immediately thought "David Brent".
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/l6vpm82uzr/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-200215-FULL.pdf
16% of people say they hold some views which are racist. 27% say they are at least a little prejudiced against people from other races. And, of course, those that do not self-identify would have to be added.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/committee-chair-election-results.pdf
Mearns 245 Champion 190 Sheerman 169
Mearns 283 Champion 261 (not redistributed 60)
Wright 219 Bailey 197 Blackman 165
Wright 281 Bailey 247 (not red 53)
Norman 221 Stuart 157 Green 93 Collins 87 McCartney 42
Norman 240 Stuart 164 Green 97 Collins 90 (nr 9)
Norman 268 Stuart 178 Green 122 (nr 23)
Norman 319 Stuart 211 (nr 38)
Lewis 260 Benyon 208 Stewart 121
Lewis 314 Benyon 242 (nr 33)
Carmichael 224 Loughton 191 Noakes 182
Carmichael 294 Loughton 252 (nr 51)
Irranca Davies 307 Gardiner 209 Whitehead 78
Blunt 173 Zahawi 167 Baron 123 Graham 92 Kawczynski 22
Blunt 178 Zahawi 173 Baron 127 Graham 95 (nr 4)
Blunt 209 Zahawi 207 Baron 140 (nr 17)
Blunt 281 Zahawi 231 (nr44)
Wollaston 532 Treddinick 64
Vaz 412 McTaggart 192
Twigg 260 Hamilton 128 Owen 106 Qureshi 101
Twigg 295 Hamilton 150 Owen 123 (nr 27)
Neil 190 Djanogly 140 Burrowes 105 Leigh 78 Lowell 66
Neil 214 Djanogly 151 Burrowes 116 Leigh 86 (nr 12)
Neil 232 Djanogly 164 Burrowes 150 (nr 21)
Neil 283 Djanogly 212 (nr 51)
Jones 307 Smith 251
Stuart 222 Hillier 211 Goodman 99 Hanson 80
Hillier 246 Stuart 240 Goodman 115 (nr 10)
Hillier 303 Stuart 280 (nr 29)
Blackwood 230 Lee 118 Poulter 94 Matcalfe 93 McPartland 52
Blackwood 243 Lee 130 Poulter 103 Matcalfe 99 (nr 12)
Blackwood 279 Lee 149 Poulter 115 (nr 32)
Field 307 Green 248 Pearce 52
The flipside of those stats is that some respondees may be interpreting the word 'racism' more broadly, in the same way that people like Greg Dyke and Emma Thompson do.
If racism weren't a problem, we'd have difficulty justifying our race relations legislation (don't be fooled; 90% of the Equality Act covering race re-enacted the older legislation) but its repeal would be an unmitigated disaster.
I am pleased with the progress, but we aren't finished yet.
@BBCJonSopel
After the Rachel #Dolezal circus, a white woman wanting to be black, America wakes to vile white man who kills black people #Charleston
Yes a vile act. But Sopel's use could be rascist? Inflammatory? Use of the word "vile"? Or just fair comment? But is it appropriate from the BBC?
Graham Stuart tried to move from Education (Eduction, Children, Schools and Family as it was used to be known) to Culture...unsuccessfully
The only comparison is what he said or says in future when a black person kills one or more white people.
I feel the need for a thread that helps extols the virtues of AV to you.
Party support is broadly the same as at the general election, with the Conservatives on 39 per cent, Labour on 30, Liberal Democrats on nine, Ukip on eight and the Greens on six.