Why does everyone think that the asian vote will automatically vote Lab?
If I was a recent immigrant perhaps, but any older generation I would vote Cons to aspire or UKIP to haul up the ladder behind me.
I don't think anyone has trouble finding immigrants of all flavours being at least as much and often more anti-new-immigrant than anyone else.
Plus all this new (small "n") Lab class war stuff means nothing to immigrants as indeed it means nothing to anyone sensible.
Asian voters are becoming more likely to vote Conservative. That's bad news for Labour of course in this seat.
When have Hindi voters ever NOT been Tories? As far as I can see that cohort has always been strongly Tory. I'd expect most Sikhs are Tories too although this may not always have been the case.
The majority of Hindu/Sikh voters have been Labour, but are trending away.
The packaging of ethnic minorities/migrants/race as one group defined by skin colour has increasingly been dismantled post 9/11 and also by EU expansion.
Hindu and Sikh voters are now majority Conservative, but in the 80s and 90s many didn't feel welcome by certain elements of the party (many of which have left for purple pastures). Back then Indians had nowhere else to go. I would also add that the Muslim vote is not monolithic, Muslims from India and East Africa tend to be more Conservative as well, while those from Pakistan and Bangladesh are very, very Labour. It's as much a culture thing as well as religious.
Hindu and Sikh voters may be majority Conservative in Harrow and Barnet but not overall, IMO. I would estimate the Conservative vote share would probably be c.35% with those groups.
My mum would shout at you if you called her a Conservative!
In our ancestral homeland of Kerala, the right-wing BJP have no seats at State Assembly or at National level - it's basically a straight fight between the lefty Congress, and the even leftier Communists
Some Labour posters on here were adamant that this wasn't happening and that even if it was the Tories have bet on the wrong minority because the growth rate of Muslims is much higher than it is for other minorities, but 2015 has thrown up enough results against the grain for there to be any doubt remaining that Indian voters (either from East Africa or from India) are increasingly voting Tory regardless of their religion. That, IMO, is a cultural difference of people coming from a nation which is comfortable with success vs people from Pakistan/Bangladesh where the culture is of perpetual victim status, which plays into Labour's hands.
MaxPB said:
Some Labour posters on here were adamant that this wasn't happening and that even if it was the Tories have bet on the wrong minority because the growth rate of Muslims is much higher than it is for other minorities, but 2015 has thrown up enough results against the grain for there to be any doubt remaining that Indian voters (either from East Africa or from India) are increasingly voting Tory regardless of their religion. That, IMO, is a cultural difference of people coming from a nation which is comfortable with success vs people from Pakistan/Bangladesh where the culture is of perpetual victim status, which plays into Labour's hands.
My understanding is that the Gujarati community is pretty solidly Tory and has been for a long time. In part this is due to their work ethic (they are a lot of small shopkeepers and particularly pharmacists) and in part due to the fact that Heath gave a lot of them passports to flee Idi Amin.
Do we have any evidence or should we just file these posts as unfortunate racial stereotyping and file in the excrement pile?
I love you too, Roger
Mine is anecdotal evidence based on conversations I've had with members of that community plus half remembered newspaper articles (in quality papers).
So I may be wrong. But it's not "unfortunate racial stereotyping" and I rather resent the implications of your response.
I think it is stereotyping - to an extent!
For example, I was the only PB Tory wot voted Labour at the General Election
But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.
It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
By the same token why cannot the EU take the money it needs from existing budgets, perhaps spend less in one area in order to increase spending in another? Why is it that the EU's seemingly only solution to any problem is to demand more cash from its members' taxpayers.
Richard it was not wrong but I really don't want to discuss this with you any more. Look beyond article 100 to the whole part of the treaty that follows and the associated agreements. Look at the mechanisms set up to ensure compliance by EU and EFTA countries. Look at the powers that those compliance bodies are given, both the right to impose fines on member states and to take interim measures to protect those that are adversely affected. In respect of EFTA and EU countries that body is the European Commission. They can take a country that does not comply to the CJE. It can impose interim measures. That includes the power to suspend a country's right to take part in the single market.
Please don' t reply to this post. If you do I will not respond further.
I don't care if you respond or not and your answer is, at best, disingenuous.
I stated that Norway had a veto on new single market regulation if it did not agree with it.
You claimed this was wrong and said that any country vetoing legislation could be suspended from the Single Market under the EEA Agreement.
When I said this was not the case you specifically stated that the articles from 100 onwards stated that a country could be suspended from the Single Market if they vetoed a new regulation.
Articles 100-104 do deal with suspension. They deal with suspension of any new legislation being brought in under the EEA Agreement if the EFTA members do not agree with it. They at no point say that an EFTA member can be suspended.
Basically you skim read something you were not familiar with and made a mistake.
The trouble is that you do not now have the decency to admit that mistake. You join a short list of contributors on this topic who would rather stand by a dishonest claim than actually admit they made a mistake.
New passport has 9 historical figures. Only two are women. Given the preponderance of chaps who were historically famous rather than women, this seems about right. It reflects historical reality, and neither justifies nor condones women being oppressed/marginalised/treated-like-crap for centuries.
* Who coined that phrase? It's super.
EDIT: Get with the programme, Francis
They're probably all cisgender as well
And of pale complexion. Need to check out their gingerness...
Partly the way my post was formatted. I was mainly aiming at Max's "Lazy Pakis vote Labour-Hard working Hindus vote Tory". You just joined in....
The problem with this site when it becomes completely Tory is that conversations which would normally be 'entre nous' you feel emboldened to say out loud
'Mr. Roger, I fail to see what's racist about suggesting people might be grateful for having their lives saved.'
The part you refer to is just factually incorrect. There was almost rebellion in the Tory Party against taking in the Ugandan Asians. It was only pressure from Labour that forced the Tories kicking and screaming to very reluctantly do the decent thing. I hardly think there would be overwhelming gratitude for that sorry affair
I don't know the history, but certainly I have been told (by senior Gujuratis) that Heath personally gets a lot of credit and that has transposed itself to the Tory party.
Comments
New Thread New Thread
In our ancestral homeland of Kerala, the right-wing BJP have no seats at State Assembly or at National level - it's basically a straight fight between the lefty Congress, and the even leftier Communists
For example, I was the only PB Tory wot voted Labour at the General Election
I stated that Norway had a veto on new single market regulation if it did not agree with it.
You claimed this was wrong and said that any country vetoing legislation could be suspended from the Single Market under the EEA Agreement.
When I said this was not the case you specifically stated that the articles from 100 onwards stated that a country could be suspended from the Single Market if they vetoed a new regulation.
Articles 100-104 do deal with suspension. They deal with suspension of any new legislation being brought in under the EEA Agreement if the EFTA members do not agree with it. They at no point say that an EFTA member can be suspended.
Basically you skim read something you were not familiar with and made a mistake.
The trouble is that you do not now have the decency to admit that mistake. You join a short list of contributors on this topic who would rather stand by a dishonest claim than actually admit they made a mistake.
Partly the way my post was formatted. I was mainly aiming at Max's "Lazy Pakis vote Labour-Hard working Hindus vote Tory". You just joined in....
The problem with this site when it becomes completely Tory is that conversations which would normally be 'entre nous' you feel emboldened to say out loud