We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
There is a reasonable argument for removing charitable status from all religious organisations.
But removing it piecemeal based on which organisations sign up to the Minimally Officially Required Beliefs seems like dangerous territory to me. Who gets to decide what these beliefs are? It is not the case that "we" (in the broadest sense), or "society", or "the UK" collectively believe in gay marriage. The majority support it but it's a long way short of unanimity. If we have some Committee For The Certification of Minimally Required Beliefs, which other lodestones might they require - might they strip an organisation of its charitable status because of opinions on abortion, or insufficient condemnation of climate change/illegal immigration/vivisection/the abolition of grammar schools (delete according to sociopolitical preferences), or the fact they haven't implemented an Obesity/Smoking Public Health Information Action Plan into their schedule of sermons?
It is hardly as if gay people face unique challenges for marrying in a religiously-approved ceremony of their choice. Divorcees may not be able to marry in their preferred church. Two non-Parsis are not going to be able to get married in London's Fire Temple.
For what it's worth, if it's viewed as problematic for religious organisations to only marry people according to the precepts of that religion (which would appear to be the point, from a religious organisation's point of view, of having a religious marriage service) then why not simply remove the legal standing of religious wedding ceremonies? You can have them, should you want to satisfy your religious beliefs or you just like the ceremonial aesthetics, but if you want to make it "legal" you've got to go to the registry office. That would be my preferred solution., at any rate.
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
There are many charitable organisations whose views I strongly disagree with, but would still allow them to retain charitable status. I would no more make gay marriage a litmus test for charitable status than I would any other political or religious viewpoint.
I would take a much tighter grip on what qualifies for charitable status on other fronts also. Charities benefit from enormous tax breaks. In a time where public finances are fragile, we need a much more rigorous discussion about we should be subsidising at public expense donkey sanctuaries or what not.
That's an interesting issue. I've worked in this field (as legacy officer for an animal charity). Representatives of medical charities absolutely *loathe" the fact that animal charities have charitable status, in my experience. One told me that he thought the donkeys should be made into salami.
Nevertheless, I'd say that at a time when the State is retreating from directly providing all sorts of services, due to reasons of cost, that the tax breaks for charities are probably money well spent.
Where do you stop?
Is gender discrimination by charities allowed?
If not, then bye-bye most of the women-only men-banned support services...
There are many charities that work exclusively for one gender, one ethnic group, or one religious group. In fact, there will be circumstances in which it is unlawful for a charity *not* to discriminate in favour of that group.
An interesting attempt at backtracking, perhaps you'll answer a direct question:
Are Ukip an extreme party?
In my opinion, yes. Completely barmy and would be very dangerous to our society if in power.
But I try not to waste everyone's time with writing my personal opinions here. It's more interesting to discuss what most people seem to think.
Interesting. I hold the same view of Corbyn's Labour Party.
Me too. I think Corbyn is not barmy. His views and approach are malicious and dangerous. Far more dangerous than UKIP who have zero chance of forming the government whereas Labour could.
Corbynistas are a collection of the nastiest people in politics. Hate and vindictiveness are their guiding lights.
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
There are many charitable organisations whose views I strongly disagree with, but would still allow them to retain charitable status. I would no more make gay marriage a litmus test for charitable status than I would any other political or religious viewpoint.
I would take a much tighter grip on what qualifies for charitable status on other fronts also. Charities benefit from enormous tax breaks. In a time where public finances are fragile, we need a much more rigorous discussion about we should be subsidising at public expense donkey sanctuaries or what not.
I did think that what Osborne tried to do to limit tax reclaims for rich donors to charity in his much derided omnishambles budget was a good idea and the huge fuss made about it did rather give the impression that for some the charitable giving was as much for the benefit of their wallets as about helping others. (I'm sure there's something in the Bible about the posturing of the ostentatious charity giver by contrast with the poor widow handing over her mite in silence......).
Good thread. Absolutely the UK public is not as bitter and small minded as the BNP/UKIP and their ilk like to think.
I think its a shame that UKIP have decided to transform from a party obsessed with Europe but with Libertarian principles to a "BNP in blazers" party obsessed with immigration and religion.
Miss Cyclefree, there's a parable where a woman gives two copper coins, and a rich man gives a lot more. The woman's devotion is greater than the rich man's contribution, because she gives all that she has, but he gives a lot yet keeps a lot for himself too.
I've been finding out a bit more about Oldham, and from the information I've gleaned, I don't think Mike's take is quite right. The Andrew Gwynne piece on LabourList is very good on what happened.
It's true that UKIP got their strategy wrong, but I think the principal reason why Labour got such a good result compared with expectations is simply that they ran an extremely good, well-resourced, and well-focused campaign, with an excellent local candidate. As Nick P mentioned upthread, Labour started from a sound position in that they already had good canvassing data despite this being a safe seat - a useful reminder to all parties not to take safe seats for granted.
What seems to have happened is that the accounts of people on the doorstep being extremely negative about Corbyn were true. The danger to Labour seems to have been not so much that their voters would switch to UKIP in large numbers, although some did, but that they simply wouldn't turn out to support Corbyn. The Labour campaign team picked this up early, and responded by going all out on making it a referendum not on Corbyn, but on Jim McMahon and on who was best for Oldham. They also put in a massive amount of work, which was also very well focussed.
As regards expectations, it does seem to be true that Labour genuinely thought this would be quite close, which is why they put so much effort in. It paid off much better than they had hoped.
UKIP's private polling had it quite close too.
I do wonder how many of UKIP's private pollsters spoke Urdu, Bengali or Punjabi?
Fair enough. But targeted canvassing is what is needed, no?
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
At the start of the year we were instructed to get out in our target areas, the response:
What are our target areas?
We have no back data, no idea who previously voted for us, and were stabbing in the dark. Thanks to an awful lot of legwork next time we're better equipped, but things can change an awful lot in 5 years.
Mr 63, make sure everyone in your local party reads this Labour account of the Oldham by-election. A fantastically detailed account of what went on there and how they played it out - starting with an activist poached from UKIP who knew their playbook. Massive emphasis on the right candidate, Labour managed to not mention Corbyn at all and only ever spoke about Jim, who was the model candidate.
UKIP need more model candidates, Carswell was a great example as a sitting MP with a strong local following. They will be found in Labour areas where Momentum have arrived and are threatening deselections. The defection of a couple of council leaders with local following and moderate politics is how UKIP will break through in the North.
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
The important thing is that they know where they need to be, and are working towards it. UKIP need to be canvassing now in key seats for the 2020 election, but I get the impression that they're not thinking that far ahead. They need to reconcile the need for local candidates while at the same time ensuring they are properly vetted. Too many UKIP councillors have resigned because they didn't understand what was required, didn't expect to be elected, or some scandal or other.
Maybe they need to find some staff who were with the LDs 10 years ago, they knew how to win locally and build from there. The system is as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
Fair enough. But targeted canvassing is what is needed, no?
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
At the start of the year we were instructed to get out in our target areas, the response:
What are our target areas?
We have no back data, no idea who previously voted for us, and were stabbing in the dark. Thanks to an awful lot of legwork next time we're better equipped, but things can change an awful lot in 5 years.
Mr 63, make sure everyone in your local party reads this Labour account of the Oldham by-election. A fantastically detailed account of what went on there and how they played it out - starting with an activist poached from UKIP who knew their playbook. Massive emphasis on the right candidate, Labour managed to not mention Corbyn at all and only ever spoke about Jim, who was the model candidate.
UKIP need more model candidates, Carswell was a great example as a sitting MP with a strong local following. They will be found in Labour areas where Momentum have arrived and are threatening deselections. The defection of a couple of council leaders with local following and moderate politics is how UKIP will break through in the North.
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
The important thing is that they know where they need to be, and are working towards it. UKIP need to be canvassing now in key seats for the 2020 election, but I get the impression that they're not thinking that far ahead. They need to reconcile the need for local candidates while at the same time ensuring they are properly vetted. Too many UKIP councillors have resigned because they didn't understand what was required, didn't expect to be elected, or some scandal or other.
Maybe they need to find some staff who were with the LDs 10 years ago, they knew how to win locally and build from there. The system is as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
I've been finding out a bit more about Oldham, and from the information I've gleaned, I don't think Mike's take is quite right. The Andrew Gwynne piece on LabourList is very good on what happened.
It's true that UKIP got their strategy wrong, but I think the principal reason why Labour got such a good result compared with expectations is simply that they ran an extremely good, well-resourced, and well-focused campaign, with an excellent local candidate. As Nick P mentioned upthread, Labour started from a sound position in that they already had good canvassing data despite this being a safe seat - a useful reminder to all parties not to take safe seats for granted.
What seems to have happened is that the accounts of people on the doorstep being extremely negative about Corbyn were true. The danger to Labour seems to have been not so much that their voters would switch to UKIP in large numbers, although some did, but that they simply wouldn't turn out to support Corbyn. The Labour campaign team picked this up early, and responded by going all out on making it a referendum not on Corbyn, but on Jim McMahon and on who was best for Oldham. They also put in a massive amount of work, which was also very well focussed.
As regards expectations, it does seem to be true that Labour genuinely thought this would be quite close, which is why they put so much effort in. It paid off much better than they had hoped.
UKIP's private polling had it quite close too.
I do wonder how many of UKIP's private pollsters spoke Urdu, Bengali or Punjabi?
Well I can speak two out of those three if UKIP want any help in the future.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
I guess that it has meant a great deal to gay people who have got married. More than anything any government has ever done, perhaps.
I know a lot of gay people. For them, and for their close friends and family, the acceptance of gay marriage meant acceptance of homosexuality.
I was once told - and I'm paraphrasing here - that if you say two people are equal but you have legislation in place that means that one cannot do things the other can do, then you are essentially saying one is better than the other.
To a point, yes. I may be put down as a fuddy-duddy for saying this but I still think the best way and my preferred way (not the only way) is for a child to be a raised by its natural biological parents in wedlock. That would be my default starting position but it's not to say that other relationships cannot successfully and lovingly raise a child.
There are those who would consider such a view against equality, and might even consider it bigoted.
I agree with you, see the shutting down of the Catholic adoption agencies for a good example of the law of unintended consequences.
That's an interesting issue. I've worked in this field (as legacy officer for an animal charity). Representatives of medical charities absolutely *loathe" the fact that animal charities have charitable status, in my experience. One told me that he thought the donkeys should be made into salami.
Nevertheless, I'd say that at a time when the State is retreating from directly providing all sorts of services, due to reasons of cost, that the tax breaks for charities are probably money well spent.
Yes, in general I think that allowing people with a bit of money to steer it to a broadly-defined cause that they think good is fair enough. I quite like the system in some East European countries allowing people to nominate 1% of their taxes to go to a charity of their choice. Clearly there are difficulties with grey areas, political parties being an obvious one. Campaigns to change the law to (as they see it) help animals have greater difficulty in getting charitable status than their human campaign counterparts.
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
There should only be one law in a country otherwise you effectively have a country where the sovereign's writ does not run. No self-respecting state can permit that.
Sharia law should not be allowed in this country because its precepts are incompatible with the very founding principles underlying our laws. There is an ECHR case on this, to which I have linked before which explains this very well.
Furthermore, sharia law takes away from people - women, in the main - legal rights which they have as British citizens, particularly in the area of family law. It is wrong to permit any sort of parallel legal system which does so.
Having views which are different to the majority view e.g. thinking that women should look after their children rather than work is very different from having some sort of "court" with some sort of "legal status" to impose that view on people. I recently read an article which said that sharia courts do not recognise the concept of rape within marriage and will therefore not criticise a man who does so or permit a wife a sharia divorce in such circumstances. It is intolerable to have a self-instituted so-called "court" undermining our criminal law in this way and forcing a woman to endure such violence.
Miss Cyclefree, there's a parable where a woman gives two copper coins, and a rich man gives a lot more. The woman's devotion is greater than the rich man's contribution, because she gives all that she has, but he gives a lot yet keeps a lot for himself too.
Wasn't there some research which showed that proportionately the poorer off in our society give more than the rich to charity?
"Campaigns to change the law to (as they see it) help animals have greater difficulty in getting charitable status than their human campaign counterparts."
Yes, I can see that a "Save the plague rat." might struggle a little. They need to be cuddly to be liked. I'd go with edible ones, myself. Something a line the lines of "Save the juicy Turkey."
Fairly predictable response from the Conservative partisans to Chuka Umunna's comments on FPTP. I'm not sure about AMS to be honest - it's not very proportional in truth but it's better than FPTP or AV.
I wonder if this is kite-flying as regards a possible "deal" to form a non-Conservative Government in 2020. We'll see - the "injustices" Umunna refers to do need to be addressed in my view but that's a debate for another day.
I would take a much tighter grip on what qualifies for charitable status on other fronts also. Charities benefit from enormous tax breaks. In a time where public finances are fragile, we need a much more rigorous discussion about we should be subsidising at public expense donkey sanctuaries or what not.
I strongly disagree. The whole point of charities is that they do things the state can't or won't do. They are a safety valve which protects us from political priorities.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
I guess that it has meant a great deal to gay people who have got married. More than anything any government has ever done, perhaps.
and those who are much older, and remember those of older generations, may find such transitions confusing and difficult. It doesn't make them unenlightened or bad people, neither does it make the advocates of change good. Such issues should be debated just as fervently and robustly as any other legislative change.
As someone old enough to remember decimalisation (and doing sums in pounds, shillings and pence) there was the wonderful story of the old dear in the Post Office muttering 'you'd think they'd have waited until the old people were dead...
As regards expectations, it does seem to be true that Labour genuinely thought this would be quite close, which is why they put so much effort in. It paid off much better than they had hoped.
Much worse, of course, from a national strategic perspective...
Good thread. Absolutely the UK public is not as bitter and small minded as the BNP/UKIP and their ilk like to think.
I think its a shame that UKIP have decided to transform from a party obsessed with Europe but with Libertarian principles to a "BNP in blazers" party obsessed with immigration and religion.
In a crowded field I've never read such rubbish.
To say Ukip transformed themselves to BNP with blazers is errant nonsense.
Fair enough. But targeted canvassing is what is needed, no?
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
At the start of the year we were instructed to get out in our target areas, the response:
What are our target areas?
We have no back data, no idea who previously voted for us, and were stabbing in the dark. Thanks to an awful lot of legwork next time we're better equipped, but things can change an awful lot in 5 years.
Mr 63, make sure everyone in your local party reads this Labour account of the Oldham by-election. A fantastically detailed account of what went on there and how they played it out - starting with an activist poached from UKIP who knew their playbook. Massive emphasis on the right candidate, Labour managed to not mention Corbyn at all and only ever spoke about Jim, who was the model candidate.
UKIP need more model candidates, Carswell was a great example as a sitting MP with a strong local following. They will be found in Labour areas where Momentum have arrived and are threatening deselections. The defection of a couple of council leaders with local following and moderate politics is how UKIP will break through in the North.
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
The important thing is that they know where they need to be, and are working towards it. UKIP need to be canvassing now in key seats for the 2020 election, but I get the impression that they're not thinking that far ahead. They need to reconcile the need for local candidates while at the same time ensuring they are properly vetted. Too many UKIP councillors have resigned because they didn't understand what was required, didn't expect to be elected, or some scandal or other.
Maybe they need to find some staff who were with the LDs 10 years ago, they knew how to win locally and build from there. The system is as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
I could talk for hours about Ukip local candidate selection, to be brief it is disastrous.
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
So called "Sharia Courts" in the UK are an abomination and need shutting down yesterday. We need to get away from the concept of multiculturism, of which this is an extreme example.
If you are in the UK then you abide by UK law, any 'arbitration' service should be licensed by the government and should deal only with British laws.
Firstly, I think that the benefits of charitable status are frequently exaggerated. Most of these organisations do not run at a profit and are not designed to do so so any tax arising from their activities is pretty minimal.
Charities vary from case to case of course but I also wonder how many charities have significant input VAT that they can recover. As the vast majority of them do not trade in a conventional sense output VAT is less of an issue
Bequests to churches etc might be a bigger issue as I understand they are exempt from Inheritance tax. I don't really have a feel for what that might cost the taxpayer but given that it is only the super rich and the unlucky that pay much inheritance tax I suspect it is more of a theoretical than real issue.
Given the limitations I suspect the main benefits of charitable status are two fold. Firstly, it gives them a regulatory framework which satisfies potential donors that their money will be properly spent. Secondly, and linked, it acts as a kind of assurance that the money is not going to head off in some bonus (whether it actually achieves this is another matter). This seems to me to be a societal good.
I am therefore reluctant to draw the net for charities too tightly. I am more than somewhat unimpressed by charities such as Gordon Brown has set up for himself but that might just be a natural suspicion about that man. I don't think that carrying out gay marriages should be a condition of charitable status. I do think less of those organisations that refuse to do such things or hold homophobic views but I would rather keep them regulated and accountable.
I've been finding out a bit more about Oldham, and from the information I've gleaned, I don't think Mike's take is quite right. The Andrew Gwynne piece on LabourList is very good on what happened.
It's true that UKIP got their strategy wrong, but I think the principal reason why Labour got such a good result compared with expectations is simply that they ran an extremely good, well-resourced, and well-focused campaign, with an excellent local candidate. As Nick P mentioned upthread, Labour started from a sound position in that they already had good canvassing data despite this being a safe seat - a useful reminder to all parties not to take safe seats for granted.
What seems to have happened is that the accounts of people on the doorstep being extremely negative about Corbyn were true. The danger to Labour seems to have been not so much that their voters would switch to UKIP in large numbers, although some did, but that they simply wouldn't turn out to support Corbyn. The Labour campaign team picked this up early, and responded by going all out on making it a referendum not on Corbyn, but on Jim McMahon and on who was best for Oldham. They also put in a massive amount of work, which was also very well focussed.
As regards expectations, it does seem to be true that Labour genuinely thought this would be quite close, which is why they put so much effort in. It paid off much better than they had hoped.
UKIP's private polling had it quite close too.
I do wonder how many of UKIP's private pollsters spoke Urdu, Bengali or Punjabi?
Well I can speak two out of those three if UKIP want any help in the future.
I doubt if your translations for this client would be all that reliable
What the rest in Oldham tells us is that the ceiling for Ukip in seats where the demographic is not ideal is low 20s... I don't think you can extrapolate much more from it
Fairly predictable response from the Conservative partisans to Chuka Umunna's comments on FPTP. I'm not sure about AMS to be honest - it's not very proportional in truth but it's better than FPTP or AV.
I wonder if this is kite-flying as regards a possible "deal" to form a non-Conservative Government in 2020. We'll see - the "injustices" Umunna refers to do need to be addressed in my view but that's a debate for another day.
The only serious bit of work undertaken into a new system in recent years as far as I am aware was the Roy Jenkins report. It recommended AMS.
As per with electoral reform Blair stuck it on a shelf and left it there.
The fundamental block was John Prescott in this case but the overall block is, as ever, that there would be a break in the link between an MP and an individual constituency (for the AMS top up).
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
The important thing is that they know where they need to be, and are working towards it. UKIP need to be canvassing now in key seats for the 2020 election, but I get the impression that they're not thinking that far ahead. They need to reconcile the need for local candidates while at the same time ensuring they are properly vetted. Too many UKIP councillors have resigned because they didn't understand what was required, didn't expect to be elected, or some scandal or other.
Maybe they need to find some staff who were with the LDs 10 years ago, they knew how to win locally and build from there. The system is as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
I could talk for hours about Ukip local candidate selection, to be brief it is disastrous.
I'm sure you could, if I can see it looks disastrous from 3500 miles away...
Which is why Farage should have gone in May, the fact of the change of leader would have done the world of good to the party after a disappointing GE.
I'm a Conservative leave-leaning doubter. I want to see the best possible campaign against the EU in the referendum, which I believe is best done by the Hannans and Carswells rather than the Farages - those who can articulately argue for Leave based on what the EU is and where it's going, rather than the base instinct anti-immigrant rhetoric offered by Farage and his ilk.
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
So called "Sharia Courts" in the UK are an abomination and need shutting down yesterday. We need to get away from the concept of multiculturism, of which this is an extreme example.
If you are in the UK then you abide by UK law, any 'arbitration' service should be licensed by the government and should deal only with British laws.
If we tackle 'sharia' courts, then surely the Beth Din should also be tackled? The idea that religious courts can act as advisers in civil cases is fair enough, except where the religion is in direct conflict with our current law on (say) women's issues. Which they sadly all too often are.
The arbitration by religion is the problem, whatever the religion. And we should ensure that any decisions made in such 'courts' are not legally binding within the legal system.
What the rest in Oldham tells us is that the ceiling for Ukip in seats where the demographic is not ideal is low 20s... I don't think you can extrapolate much more from it
What Oldham doesn't tell us is whether there will be a by-election in next five years that favours a massive protest vote (for some reason or other) against the government or the system in general. LibDems used to triumph at these events and I can see UKIP doing it once or twice in the right seat.
'There should only be one law in a country otherwise you effectively have a country where the sovereign's writ does not run. No self-respecting state can permit that.'
Well maybe you have put your finger on the issue there. Is a state whose political elite is desperate to surrender its political independence to a transnational bureaucracy 'self respecting'?
Self-harming is more like it - and the toleration of a parallel court system handing out medieval 'justice' is just another example.
To say Ukip transformed themselves to BNP with blazers is errant nonsense.
there were a lot of reports (maybe unfairly, if compared to councillors of other parties) of unfortunate stuff said by UKIP councillors etc.
and then suddenly Farage started talking about AIDS victims coming to steal our health resources etc. which seemed to be a conscious effort to appeal to a certain sector.
I've been finding out a bit more about Oldham, and from the information I've gleaned, I don't think Mike's take is quite right. The Andrew Gwynne piece on LabourList is very good on what happened.
It's true that UKIP got their strategy wrong, but I think the principal reason why Labour got such a good result compared with expectations is simply that they ran an extremely good, well-resourced, and well-focused campaign, with an excellent local candidate. As Nick P mentioned upthread, Labour started from a sound position in that they already had good canvassing data despite this being a safe seat - a useful reminder to all parties not to take safe seats for granted.
What seems to have happened is that the accounts of people on the doorstep being extremely negative about Corbyn were true. The danger to Labour seems to have been not so much that their voters would switch to UKIP in large numbers, although some did, but that they simply wouldn't turn out to support Corbyn. The Labour campaign team picked this up early, and responded by going all out on making it a referendum not on Corbyn, but on Jim McMahon and on who was best for Oldham. They also put in a massive amount of work, which was also very well focussed.
As regards expectations, it does seem to be true that Labour genuinely thought this would be quite close, which is why they put so much effort in. It paid off much better than they had hoped.
UKIP's private polling had it quite close too.
I do wonder how many of UKIP's private pollsters spoke Urdu, Bengali or Punjabi?
Well I can speak two out of those three if UKIP want any help in the future.
I doubt if your translations for this client would be all that reliable
I love UKIP. I really do.
They were the cherry on the parfait on Cameron's detoxification/modernisation strategy.
In an instance they made the Tory party more appealing to the centre ground.
In hindsight, Cameron's fruitcake, loonies and racist line was a brilliant and peremptory attack on UKIP.
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
The important thing is that they know where they need to be, and are working towards it. UKIP need to be canvassing now in key seats for the 2020 election, but I get the impression that they're not thinking that far ahead. They need to reconcile the need for local candidates while at the same time ensuring they are properly vetted. Too many UKIP councillors have resigned because they didn't understand what was required, didn't expect to be elected, or some scandal or other.
Maybe they need to find some staff who were with the LDs 10 years ago, they knew how to win locally and build from there. The system is as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
I could talk for hours about Ukip local candidate selection, to be brief it is disastrous.
I'm sure you could, if I can see it looks disastrous from 3500 miles away...
Which is why Farage should have gone in May, the fact of the change of leader would have done the world of good to the party after a disappointing GE.
I'm a Conservative leave-leaning doubter. I want to see the best possible campaign against the EU in the referendum, which I believe is best done by the Hannans and Carswells rather than the Farages - those who can articulately argue for Leave based on what the EU is and where it's going, rather than the base instinct anti-immigrant rhetoric offered by Farage and his ilk.
With respect I believe you're confusing a general election with a leave campaign, they're two entirely different things. The three you mention all want the same thing, personalities dictate they go about it in different ways and appeal to different sections of society. Hannan is fantastic at appealing to conservatives, I was with him last week, but his vocabulary could be too highbrow for some.
My plea to anybody is not to let personalities cloud your judgement re the EU, Mandelson and Blair want in, need I say more?
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
So called "Sharia Courts" in the UK are an abomination and need shutting down yesterday. We need to get away from the concept of multiculturism, of which this is an extreme example.
If you are in the UK then you abide by UK law, any 'arbitration' service should be licensed by the government and should deal only with British laws.
If we tackle 'sharia' courts, then surely the Beth Din should also be tackled? The idea that religious courts can act as advisers in civil cases is fair enough, except where the religion is in direct conflict with our current law on (say) women's issues. Which they sadly all too often are.
The arbitration by religion is the problem, whatever the religion. And we should ensure that any decisions made in such 'courts' are not legally binding within the legal system.
Agree completely, including the Beth Din. In an ideal world there would be women's charities close to affected communities who can advise on family law as it is in the UK, rather than how the religious elders tells her it applies under some alien system.
The fact is that we've allowed imported wives from eg. Pakistan and Bangldesh - who often don't speak good English - over a period of decades. As a country we owe it to these migrants to ensure they're looked after in their hour of need, that they can walk away safely from abuse without being judged and without losing everything they have.
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
The important thing is that they know where they need to be, and are working towards it. UKIP need to be canvassing now in key seats for the 2020 election, but I get the impression that they're not thinking that far ahead. They need to reconcile the need for local candidates while at the same time ensuring they are properly vetted. Too many UKIP councillors have resigned because they didn't understand what was required, didn't expect to be elected, or some scandal or other.
Maybe they need to find some staff who were with the LDs 10 years ago, they knew how to win locally and build from there. The system is as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
I could talk for hours about Ukip local candidate selection, to be brief it is disastrous.
I'm sure you could, if I can see it looks disastrous from 3500 miles away...
Which is why Farage should have gone in May, the fact of the change of leader would have done the world of good to the party after a disappointing GE.
I'm a Conservative leave-leaning doubter. I want to see the best possible campaign against the EU in the referendum, which I believe is best done by the Hannans and Carswells rather than the Farages - those who can articulately argue for Leave based on what the EU is and where it's going, rather than the base instinct anti-immigrant rhetoric offered by Farage and his ilk.
Agree 100%
Ukip and Farage have forced the Tories into a referendum, now better to leave the campaign to much less polarizing figures
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
The important thing is that they know where they need to be, and are working towards it. UKIP need to be canvassing now in key seats for the 2020 election, but I get the impression that they're not thinking that far ahead. They as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
I could talk for hours about Ukip local candidate selection, to be brief it is disastrous.
I'm sure you could, if I can see it looks disastrous from 3500 miles away...
Which is why Farage should have gone in May, the fact of the change of leader would have done the world of good to the party after a disappointing GE.
I'm a Conservative leave-leaning doubter. I want to see the best possible campaign against the EU in the referendum, which I believe is best done by the Hannans and Carswells rather than the Farages - those who can articulately argue for Leave based on what the EU is and where it's going, rather than the base instinct anti-immigrant rhetoric offered by Farage and his ilk.
With respect I believe you're confusing a general election with a leave campaign, they're two entirely different things. The three you mention all want the same thing, personalities dictate they go about it in different ways and appeal to different sections of society. Hannan is fantastic at appealing to conservatives, I was with him last week, but his vocabulary could be too highbrow for some.
My plea to anybody is not to let personalities cloud your judgement re the EU, Mandelson and Blair want in, need I say more?
May I nominate the last sentence for the "most confused post of 2015" award?
Norman Tebbit wades into the Heathrow debate: he is spot on with this observation.
But oh, Lord, are our democratic Parliamentary politics and the rational development of infrastructure mutually exclusive, or is it that we live in a era of politicians to whom "long term" means the time to the next election and "purpose" means getting re-elected?
Yep! Planning for major infrastructure has been holding the country back for decades.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5. This for the same basic project of a large new building on an existing site, with nothing external bar the access roads.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
To be fair the Dubai terminal did not have to take into account the impact on people's lives and livelihoods in the same way any major airport expansion in the UK does.
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
So called "Sharia Courts" in the UK are an abomination and need shutting down yesterday. We need to get away from the concept of multiculturism, of which this is an extreme example.
If you are in the UK then you abide by UK law, any 'arbitration' service should be licensed by the government and should deal only with British laws.
If we tackle 'sharia' courts, then surely the Beth Din should also be tackled? The idea that religious courts can act as advisers in civil cases is fair enough, except where the religion is in direct conflict with our current law on (say) women's issues. Which they sadly all too often are.
The arbitration by religion is the problem, whatever the religion. And we should ensure that any decisions made in such 'courts' are not legally binding within the legal system.
I do not know much about Beth Din courts but what I understand is that they subject their decisions for ratification by the courts in accordance with English law and that their decisions are therefore not in conflict with it. If that's the case then I don't see the issue. It's no different to, say, someone getting a civil divorce and also getting a nullification of a marriage in accordance with Catholic canon law or, say, me and my employer agreeing a contract which can say anything it wants (e.g. me coming into the office dressed in purple every other Tuesday) provided that nothing in it is contrary to English law.
That is not the case with sharia law which is why it is iniquitous that (a) we have permitted their growth, with all the prejudicial consequences for British women (who happen also to be Muslims); and (b) the government has not supported the various attempts by Baroness Cox in the House of Lords to curb their spread and/or make them subject to English law.
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
So called "Sharia Courts" in the UK are an abomination and need shutting down yesterday. We need to get away from the concept of multiculturism, of which this is an extreme example.
If you are in the UK then you abide by UK law, any 'arbitration' service should be licensed by the government and should deal only with British laws.
If we tackle 'sharia' courts, then surely the Beth Din should also be tackled? The idea that religious courts can act as advisers in civil cases is fair enough, except where the religion is in direct conflict with our current law on (say) women's issues. Which they sadly all too often are.
The arbitration by religion is the problem, whatever the religion. And we should ensure that any decisions made in such 'courts' are not legally binding within the legal system.
I do not know much about Beth Din courts but what I understand is that they subject their decisions for ratification by the courts in accordance with English law and that their decisions are therefore not in conflict with it. If that's the case then I don't see the issue. It's no different to, say, someone getting a civil divorce and also getting a nullification of a marriage in accordance with Catholic canon law or, say, me and my employer agreeing a contract which can say anything it wants (e.g. me coming into the office dressed in purple every other Tuesday) provided that nothing in it is contrary to English law.
That is not the case with sharia law which is why it is iniquitous that (a) we have permitted their growth, with all the prejudicial consequences for British women (who happen also to be Muslims); and (b) the government has not supported the various attempts by Baroness Cox in the House of Lords to curb their spread and/or make them subject to English law.
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
So called "Sharia Courts" in the UK are an abomination and need shutting down yesterday. We need to get away from the concept of multiculturism, of which this is an extreme example.
If you are in the UK then you abide by UK law, any 'arbitration' service should be licensed by the government and should deal only with British laws.
If we tackle 'sharia' courts, then surely the Beth Din should also be tackled? The idea that religious courts can act as advisers in civil cases is fair enough, except where the religion is in direct conflict with our current law on (say) women's issues. Which they sadly all too often are.
The arbitration by religion is the problem, whatever the religion. And we should ensure that any decisions made in such 'courts' are not legally binding within the legal system.
I do not know much about Beth Din courts but what I understand is that they subject their decisions for ratification by the courts in accordance with English law and that their decisions are therefore not in conflict with it. If that's the case then I don't see the issue. It's no different to, say, someone getting a civil divorce and also getting a nullification of a marriage in accordance with Catholic canon law or, say, me and my employer agreeing a contract which can say anything it wants (e.g. me coming into the office dressed in purple every other Tuesday) provided that nothing in it is contrary to English law.
That is not the case with sharia law which is why it is iniquitous that (a) we have permitted their growth, with all the prejudicial consequences for British women (who happen also to be Muslims); and (b) the government has not supported the various attempts by Baroness Cox in the House of Lords to curb their spread and/or make them subject to English law.
Scandal of women trapped in marriages by Jewish courts
Orthodox Beth Dins in Britain not doing enough to help 'chained wives', say campaigners
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
The important thing is that they know where they need to be, and are working towards it. UKIP need to be canvassing now in key seats for the 2020 election, but I get the impression that they're not thinking that far ahead. They as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
I could talk for hours about Ukip local candidate selection, to be brief it is disastrous.
I'm sure you could, if I can see it looks disastrous from 3500 miles away...
Which is why Farage should have gone in May, the fact of the change of leader would have done the world of good to the party after a disappointing GE.
I'm a Conservative leave-leaning doubter. I want to see the best possible campaign against the EU in the referendum, which I believe is best done by the Hannans and Carswells rather than the Farages - those who can articulately argue for Leave based on what the EU is and where it's going, rather than the base instinct anti-immigrant rhetoric offered by Farage and his ilk.
With respect I believe you're confusing a general election with a leave campaign, they're two entirely different things. The three you mention all want the same thing, personalities dictate they go about it in different ways and appeal to different sections of society. Hannan is fantastic at appealing to conservatives, I was with him last week, but his vocabulary could be too highbrow for some.
My plea to anybody is not to let personalities cloud your judgement re the EU, Mandelson and Blair want in, need I say more?
May I nominate the last sentence for the "most confused post of 2015" award?
Nominate what you want, people repelled by Farage will be equalled by those repelled by the two I mention. The point is we're not voting for any of them.
I could talk for hours about Ukip local candidate selection, to be brief it is disastrous.
I'm sure you could, if I can see it looks disastrous from 3500 miles away...
Which is why Farage should have gone in May, the fact of the change of leader would have done the world of good to the party after a disappointing GE.
I'm a Conservative leave-leaning doubter. I want to see the best possible campaign against the EU in the referendum, which I believe is best done by the Hannans and Carswells rather than the Farages - those who can articulately argue for Leave based on what the EU is and where it's going, rather than the base instinct anti-immigrant rhetoric offered by Farage and his ilk.
With respect I believe you're confusing a general election with a leave campaign, they're two entirely different things. The three you mention all want the same thing, personalities dictate they go about it in different ways and appeal to different sections of society. Hannan is fantastic at appealing to conservatives, I was with him last week, but his vocabulary could be too highbrow for some.
My plea to anybody is not to let personalities cloud your judgement re the EU, Mandelson and Blair want in, need I say more?
My suggestion was that UKIP as a party needed a reboot after May's disappointment. With Farage resigning and then un-resigning they didn't get that.
UKIP members and supporters of Farage have already decided on their referendum vote, they need to find people who can help with the undecided 20% in the middle.
The referendum is what they stand for as a party, it should - the odd by-election aside - be the only item on their radar for the next 18 months.
Yes that's different to the EU 2019 (if there is an EU 2019) and GE 2020 elections, they need to start canvassing now for 2020 so should incorporate the referendum questions into their canvassing.
As an example. They canvass me, I say I'm a Con at the GE but leaning Leave in the referendum. They then know that I need Carswell's pitch rather than Farage's for the referendum. This is the reason why Labour won in Oldham, they had this detailed information and UKIP didn't.
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
So called "Sharia Courts" in the UK are an abomination and need shutting down yesterday. We need to get away from the concept of multiculturism, of which this is an extreme example.
If you are in the UK then you abide by UK law, any 'arbitration' service should be licensed by the government and should deal only with British laws.
If we tackle 'sharia' courts, then surely the Beth Din should also be tackled? The idea that religious courts can act as advisers in civil cases is fair enough, except where the religion is in direct conflict with our current law on (say) women's issues. Which they sadly all too often are.
The arbitration by religion is the problem, whatever the religion. And we should ensure that any decisions made in such 'courts' are not legally binding within the legal system.
I do not know much about Beth Din courts but what I understand is that they subject their decisions for ratification by the courts in accordance with English law and that their decisions are therefore not in conflict with it. If that's the case then I don't see the issue. It's no different to, say, someone getting a civil divorce and also getting a nullification of a marriage in accordance with Catholic canon law or, say, me and my employer agreeing a contract which can say anything it wants (e.g. me coming into the office dressed in purple every other Tuesday) provided that nothing in it is contrary to English law.
That is not the case with sharia law which is why it is iniquitous that (a) we have permitted their growth, with all the prejudicial consequences for British women (who happen also to be Muslims); and (b) the government has not supported the various attempts by Baroness Cox in the House of Lords to curb their spread and/or make them subject to English law.
Yet there are 'Get' women. They are starting to tackle this, but the real solution is to stop Beth Din. We should not have people in the UK suffering because there is a religious court which takes precedence over the UK courts within their community.
''I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.''
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
So called "Sharia Courts" in the UK are an abomination and need shutting down yesterday. We need to get away from the concept of multiculturism, of which this is an extreme example.
If you are in the UK then you abide by UK law, any 'arbitration' service should be licensed by the government and should deal only with British laws.
If we tackle 'sharia' courts, then surely the Beth Din should also be tackled? The idea that religious courts can act as advisers in civil cases is fair enough, except where the religion is in direct conflict with our current law on (say) women's issues. Which they sadly all too often are.
The arbitration by religion is the problem, whatever the religion. And we should ensure that any decisions made in such 'courts' are not legally binding within the legal system.
I do not know much about Beth Din courts but what I understand is that they subject their decisions for ratification by the courts in accordance with English law and that their decisions are therefore not in conflict with it. If that's the case then I don't see the issue. It's no different to, say, someone getting a civil divorce and also getting a nullification of a marriage in accordance with Catholic canon law or, say, me and my employer agreeing a contract which can say anything it wants (e.g. me coming into the office dressed in purple every other Tuesday) provided that nothing in it is contrary to English law.
That is not the case with sharia law which is why it is iniquitous that (a) we have permitted their growth, with all the prejudicial consequences for British women (who happen also to be Muslims); and (b) the government has not supported the various attempts by Baroness Cox in the House of Lords to curb their spread and/or make them subject to English law.
Scandal of women trapped in marriages by Jewish courts
Orthodox Beth Dins in Britain not doing enough to help 'chained wives', say campaigners
You are confusing two issues here, an election and a referendum. Farage has done more than any other person to force a referendum, expecting him to stand aside is unreasonable.
But moving on to an election I agree, Ukip need a new approach.
Incidentally others on here will know more about who and when the official leave organisation are, it looks like Vote Leave to me.
Thanks to you and RCS100 and Josias Jessop on this. I will read the articles.
As an aside, don't people and companies submit to alternative legal systems all the time?
So, sign a contract with certain companies and you accept that you will not be able to use the UK civil courts, and must instead use outside arbitration.
Indeed, whole industries have essentially opted-out of the UK civil enforcement.
Why the f##k are all the media fawning over Shaker Aamer. It isn't just the usual suspects like BBC / Guardian, it is ITV news, Daily Mail etc all giving him soft soap interviews.
This is a man who says life under the Taliban was actually really good and they were just misunderstood, and that it was a lie that they were against girls being educated. Would he like to tell Malala Yousafzai about that?
He claims known Islamist extremists are also misunderstood and never done anything wrong. Just because he said it was wrong to kill Lee Rigby, listen to the f##king things he is saying in these interviews.
If life was so good in Afghanistan, why doesn't he f##k off back there.
I'm struggling to see the scandal here. If a group of people (let's call them 'ultra-orthodox Jews', for the sake of argument) wish to form a sort of religious club in which, according to their own rules, they create something called 'marriage' but which has no legal significance, then why should the law take the slightest interest in whether the group decides to annul it or not ? It has no legal existence in the first place, and in any case no-one is obliged to remain a member of the club if they don't like the eccentric rules. These are consenting adults, right?
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
The important thing is that they know where they need to be, and are working towards it. UKIP need to be canvassing now in key seats for the 2020 election, but I get the impression that they're not thinking that far ahead. They need to reconcile the need for local candidates while at the same time ensuring they are properly vetted. Too many UKIP councillors have resigned because they didn't understand what was required, didn't expect to be elected, or some scandal or other.
Maybe they need to find some staff who were with the LDs 10 years ago, they knew how to win locally and build from there. The system is as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
I could talk for hours about Ukip local candidate selection, to be brief it is disastrous.
I'm sure you could, if I can see it looks disastrous from 3500 miles away...
Which is why Farage should have gone in May, the fact of the change of leader would have done the world of good to the party after a disappointing GE.
I'm a Conservative leave-leaning doubter. I want to see the best possible campaign against the EU in the referendum, which I believe is best done by the Hannans and Carswells rather than the Farages - those who can articulately argue for Leave based on what the EU is and where it's going, rather than the base instinct anti-immigrant rhetoric offered by Farage and his ilk.
Agree 100%
Ukip and Farage have forced the Tories into a referendum, now better to leave the campaign to much less polarizing figures
That won't happen. Farage's ego is too great, for him to walk away.
Norman Tebbit wades into the Heathrow debate: he is spot on with this observation.
But oh, Lord, are our democratic Parliamentary politics and the rational development of infrastructure mutually exclusive, or is it that we live in a era of politicians to whom "long term" means the time to the next election and "purpose" means getting re-elected?
Yep! Planning for major infrastructure has been holding the country back for decades.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5. This for the same basic project of a large new building on an existing site, with nothing external bar the access roads.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
To be fair the Dubai terminal did not have to take into account the impact on people's lives and livelihoods in the same way any major airport expansion in the UK does. Agree completely. The government in Dubai announced the expansion and there were spades in the ground shortly afterwards.
I would argue that the T5 enquiry was way too broad about numbers of flights etc when it should have been about the building of a building. The numbers of flights were irrelevant to the discussion at that time, and the numbers of passengers were addressed by the new Heathrow Express, M25 spur & widening, and additional onsite & offsite parking.
The fact is that in the UK our planning is biased in favour of small sleights to individuals and small communities, rather than the common good. Also, the new runway is proposed NORTH of the two existing runways. How the MPs living SOUTH of the airport (hello Zac!) think that they will be massively affected I don't know - if anything they will have fewer overhead flights once the new runway opens.
If the planners have real insight and talk to the aviation industry, they will allow extra flights only from new generation A350, A380 and 787 aircraft, which are noticeably quieter than their predecessors.
I'm struggling to see the scandal here. If a group of people (let's call them 'ultra-orthodox Jews', for the sake of argument) wish to form a sort of religious club in which, according to their own rules, they create something called 'marriage' but which has no legal significance, then why should the law take the slightest interest in whether the group decides to annul it or not ? It has no legal existence in the first place, and in any case no-one is obliged to remain a member of the club if they don't like the eccentric rules. These are consenting adults, right?
Why the f##k are all the media fawning over Shaker Aamer. It isn't just the usual suspects like BBC / Guardian, it is ITV news, Daily Mail etc all giving him soft soap interviews.
This is a man who says life under the Taliban was actually really good and they were just misunderstood, and that it was a lie that they were against girls being educated. Would he like to tell Malala Yousafzai about that?
He claims known Islamist extremists are also misunderstood and never done anything wrong. Just because he said it was wrong to kill Lee Rigby, listen to the f##king things he is saying in these interviews.
If life was so good in Afghanistan, why doesn't he f##k off back there.
I guess it's because he is seen as a good stick to beat Tony Blair with.
I'm struggling to see the scandal here. If a group of people (let's call them 'ultra-orthodox Jews', for the sake of argument) wish to form a sort of religious club in which, according to their own rules, they create something called 'marriage' but which has no legal significance, then why should the law take the slightest interest in whether the group decides to annul it or not ? It has no legal existence in the first place, and in any case no-one is obliged to remain a member of the club if they don't like the eccentric rules. These are consenting adults, right?
Are Jewish marriages really not legal in the UK?
If not then there should be an information campaign promoting civil marriage among the Jewish community, especially women, as there should be in the Muslim community. Half of me thinks that it's time to require all couples marrying to present themselves at the registry office.
Why the f##k are all the media fawning over Shaker Aamer. It isn't just the usual suspects like BBC / Guardian, it is ITV news, Daily Mail etc all giving him soft soap interviews.
This is a man who says life under the Taliban was actually really good and they were just misunderstood, and that it was a lie that they were against girls being educated. Would he like to tell Malala Yousafzai about that?
He claims known Islamist extremists are also misunderstood and never done anything wrong. Just because he said it was wrong to kill Lee Rigby, listen to the f##king things he is saying in these interviews.
If life was so good in Afghanistan, why doesn't he f##k off back there.
I guess it's because he is seen as a good stick to beat Tony Blair with.
You can be against what Blair did and Guantanamo / torturing prisoners without bending over backwards to give his guy the softest of soft interviews. The ITV corresponding was giving it all the oh he looks strong, but he had tears in his eyes, he never saw his kids growing up, arrrhhhhh, BS.
Sharia courts in this country are subject to English (or Scottish) law, aren't they? I am not an expert, but they surely act on exactly the same principle as the beth din - ie, their rulings are only binding to the extent the parties involved have agreed that to be the case in contracts that are enforceable in the normal, civil courts. The issue with both sharia courts and the beth din, I'd have thought, is the extent to which all parties have freely consented to the contracts they have signed.
Sharia courts in this country are subject to English (or Scottish) law, aren't they? I am not an expert, but they surely act on exactly the same principle as the beth din - ie, their rulings are only binding to the extent the parties involved have agreed that to be the case in contracts that are enforceable in the normal, civil courts. The issue with both sharia courts and the beth din, I'd have thought, is the extent to which all parties have freely consented to the contracts they have signed.
No they aren't. You can agree to have your contract subject to the law of another country. But excluding English law from criminal matters or for family law matters is not a question of freely entering into a contract but of a purported "legal system" depriving people - almost invariably women - of their rights as English citizens.
28-year-old shot dead by police during 'bid to spring convicts from prison van' - as four men appear in court over 'escape plot' and it is claimed he was in the same gang as Mark Duggan
You are confusing two issues here, an election and a referendum. Farage has done more than any other person to force a referendum, expecting him to stand aside is unreasonable.
But moving on to an election I agree, Ukip need a new approach.
Incidentally others on here will know more about who and when the official leave organisation are, it looks like Vote Leave to me.
OK, so what is UKIP's priority in the next 18 months? It should be the referendum, while keeping in mind Parliamentary by-elections.
Agree completely that Farage has made the party what it is, but in business the entrepreneur that founds a company is often not the guy to run it long term and is usually forced out by the shareholders when it's clear he's a liability rather than an asset.
Is this actually becoming dangerous for Ruth Davidson from an expectations-management point of view?
Not really because Scotland has AMS. If the Tories can broach 20% and Labour slip below that, the Tories will almost certainly get more seats than Labour on the list (and have a better chance than Labour of winning any constituencies).
If the Tories have more votes, it comes down to relatively unlikely electoral maths for them not to be the second party at Holyrood.
It's a peculiar thing - Kippers were anti EU for ages/socially conservative Bring Back 1950s, and then somehow they got the BNP For Pussies moniker. Now they seem to talk a great deal about immigration.
I don't really know how this all happened. I've some friends in their late 60s/70s who aren't socially conservative - but feel the country has changed too much culturally, and want it stopped. They vote UKIP or reluctantly Tory. Others are ex-Labour and detest multiculturalism/immigration affecting their childrens' chances/education and vote Kipper - these would rather die than vote Tory.
The only political Kipper activist I know is the stereotypical old grumpy man from the hang'em and flog'em school - who's pissed off about everything... Country Gone To The Dogs.
I must say I'm surprised how extreme ukip are still seen as by many. I know several people who are quite open at how horribly racist they are and how terrible it would be anywhere if they won. I'm not inclined to vote for them myself, but they've not struck me as that appreciably different from other parties, but some see them that way.
The vast majority of Ukip are socially conservative, its something that applies equally to plenty of labour voters. Seeing their cosy club threatened the established parties invented expressions like "BNP in blazers", although completely inaccurate to a great extent it worked.
That's what modern politics is all about, smearing opponents as opposed to good governance.
UKIP fills a void in the UK for a socially conservative party.
However, in doing so it repels Eurosceptic libertarians.
Yup, I have no party to vote for. I loathe the EU and I'm not massively bothered by the anti-immigration agenda, but I'm definitely very socially liberal. The Tories are the best fit, but the leadership is too pro-EU for my liking, once Dave is gone I will be voting for a proper sceptic.
Snap.
Have you joined Richard? I made sure to do it this year in case we vote to leave and Dave resigns. I'm not even sure who is running other than the big three of Osborne, May and Boris but hopefully only one of them will appear on the ballot for the member's vote. I don't fancy voting for any of those three.
Staff working in the Grade I-listed, 19th-century building are banned from using toasters because they are a fire hazard and contravene the council’s eco-friendly policies on energy use.
The rebellion by Conservative councillors was precipitated by an internal memo sent to all staff that said an environmental awareness officer had spotted contraband items.
You have got to be f##king me.....toasters aren't eco-friendly enough....Climate change, it all the fault of, no not the Chinese burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, nope its a bloke in Bradford making a piece of toast.
And "environmental awareness officer"...Tory cuts obviously haven't gone far enough....we are closing the library, but we still have the toaster Nazi in place.
Sharia courts in this country are subject to English (or Scottish) law, aren't they? I am not an expert, but they surely act on exactly the same principle as the beth din - ie, their rulings are only binding to the extent the parties involved have agreed that to be the case in contracts that are enforceable in the normal, civil courts. The issue with both sharia courts and the beth din, I'd have thought, is the extent to which all parties have freely consented to the contracts they have signed.
No they aren't. You can agree to have your contract subject to the law of another country. But excluding English law from criminal matters or for family law matters is not a question of freely entering into a contract but of a purported "legal system" depriving people - almost invariably women - of their rights as English citizens.
I am genuinely shocked to learn that you can bypass English criminal law in this country. Do you have any examples? My understanding - which I admit is limited - was that enforceable sharia, Jewish or whatever law in the UK was civil in nature and based on contracts signed by the parties in a dispute. If that is not the case then it is outrageous.
Sharia courts in this country are subject to English (or Scottish) law, aren't they? I am not an expert, but they surely act on exactly the same principle as the beth din - ie, their rulings are only binding to the extent the parties involved have agreed that to be the case in contracts that are enforceable in the normal, civil courts. The issue with both sharia courts and the beth din, I'd have thought, is the extent to which all parties have freely consented to the contracts they have signed.
Apart from the obvious suggestion that the contracts are not entered into freely, there is also immense pressure applied to (usually) women that the normal courts can't deal with Muslims and Jews, and that if they are a Muslim or Jew they MUST go through these 'courts' in the first instance.
That view is often backed up by the local 'lawyer' the lady might speak to, that 'lawyer' not being a UK qualified Legal professional.
This is where charity shelters and access to lawyers are essential, the government should be funding them.
28-year-old shot dead by police during 'bid to spring convicts from prison van' - as four men appear in court over 'escape plot' and it is claimed he was in the same gang as Mark Duggan
Is this actually becoming dangerous for Ruth Davidson from an expectations-management point of view?
Not really because Scotland has AMS. If the Tories can broach 20% and Labour slip below that, the Tories will almost certainly get more seats than Labour on the list (and have a better chance than Labour of winning any constituencies).
If the Tories have more votes, it comes down to relatively unlikely electoral maths for them not to be the second party at Holyrood.
And "environmental awareness officer"...Tory cuts obviously haven't gone far enough....we are closing the library, but we still have the toaster Nazi in place.
You are making the mistake of thinking George Osborne was a conservative.
You can vote conservative if you want. But like everywhere else in Europe, you will get social democracy.
I'm struggling to see the scandal here. If a group of people (let's call them 'ultra-orthodox Jews', for the sake of argument) wish to form a sort of religious club in which, according to their own rules, they create something called 'marriage' but which has no legal significance, then why should the law take the slightest interest in whether the group decides to annul it or not ? It has no legal existence in the first place, and in any case no-one is obliged to remain a member of the club if they don't like the eccentric rules. These are consenting adults, right?
There are two reasons for the law to get involved: (1) if parties are, as a result of such private arrangements, deprived of their English law rights or excused from their legal obligations; (b) there may be children involved.
I can see no circumstances in which English criminal law jurisdiction should be ousted for events in England. But sharia courts purport to do this. I understand that some sharia judges say that a woman should always be sexually available to her husband thus denying what is current English law, namely, that there can be rape in marriage. I find it abhorrent that a woman should be forced to endure rape within a marriage on the say-so of some so-called religious judge because we, as a society, don't have the balls to put a stop to such courts. No ifs, no buts.
Staff working in the Grade I-listed, 19th-century building are banned from using toasters because they are a fire hazard and contravene the council’s eco-friendly policies on energy use.
The rebellion by Conservative councillors was precipitated by an internal memo sent to all staff that said an environmental awareness officer had spotted contraband items.
You have got to be f##king me.....toasters aren't eco-friendly enough....Climate change, it all the fault of, no not the Chinese burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, nope its a bloke in Bradford making a piece of toast.
And "environmental awareness officer"...Tory cuts obviously haven't gone far enough....we are closing the library, but we still have the toaster Nazi in place.
Why the f##k are all the media fawning over Shaker Aamer. It isn't just the usual suspects like BBC / Guardian, it is ITV news, Daily Mail etc all giving him soft soap interviews.
This is a man who says life under the Taliban was actually really good and they were just misunderstood, and that it was a lie that they were against girls being educated. Would he like to tell Malala Yousafzai about that?
He claims known Islamist extremists are also misunderstood and never done anything wrong. Just because he said it was wrong to kill Lee Rigby, listen to the f##king things he is saying in these interviews.
If life was so good in Afghanistan, why doesn't he f##k off back there.
It was no different with Moazzem Begg (with a similar history) who was fawned over by Amnesty International, to its eternal shame.
Sharia courts in this country are subject to English (or Scottish) law, aren't they? I am not an expert, but they surely act on exactly the same principle as the beth din - ie, their rulings are only binding to the extent the parties involved have agreed that to be the case in contracts that are enforceable in the normal, civil courts. The issue with both sharia courts and the beth din, I'd have thought, is the extent to which all parties have freely consented to the contracts they have signed.
No they aren't. You can agree to have your contract subject to the law of another country. But excluding English law from criminal matters or for family law matters is not a question of freely entering into a contract but of a purported "legal system" depriving people - almost invariably women - of their rights as English citizens.
I am genuinely shocked to learn that you can bypass English criminal law in this country. Do you have any examples? My understanding - which I admit is limited - was that enforceable sharia, Jewish or whatever law in the UK was civil in nature and based on contracts signed by the parties in a dispute. If that is not the case then it is outrageous.
I think the issue is one of a civil contract written to include the 'arbitration' as a pre-nuptial agreement, or of a marriage ceremony not being legally binding at all .
The major issue is that those signing these contracts aren't aware that they are not legal contracts. They assume that if they get married in the UK then UK law will protect them, but those in their 'community' will try every trick in the book (such as denying access to children) to avoid anything that ends up in an actual British court.
Why the f##k are all the media fawning over Shaker Aamer. It isn't just the usual suspects like BBC / Guardian, it is ITV news, Daily Mail etc all giving him soft soap interviews.
This is a man who says life under the Taliban was actually really good and they were just misunderstood, and that it was a lie that they were against girls being educated. Would he like to tell Malala Yousafzai about that?
He claims known Islamist extremists are also misunderstood and never done anything wrong. Just because he said it was wrong to kill Lee Rigby, listen to the f##king things he is saying in these interviews.
If life was so good in Afghanistan, why doesn't he f##k off back there.
It was no different with Moazzem Begg (with a similar history) who was fawned over by Amnesty International, to its eternal shame.
If I can find this stuff in a moment, what the hell are journalists who are meant to look for stuff, for crying out loud, not doing the same.
Are there no journalists left with a bit of curiosity and scepticism???
Oh yes Moazzem Begg...he's just a poor boy, nobody loves him, he's just a poor boy, running an Islamic Bookshop...who has also been a Jahadi, attended training camps, etc etc etc and now is involved in CAGE.
Again just terribly unlucky bloke. Wrong place, wrong time. How was he to know that so many of his friends are Islamic extremists and that the Taliban could be a bit naughty.
And last week, some f##king idiot judge released Amram Choudary AGAIN on bail, after being re-arrested for breaking his BAIL.
ISIS must think we are totally bonkers and a load of bed wetters when they read this stuff.
Staff working in the Grade I-listed, 19th-century building are banned from using toasters because they are a fire hazard and contravene the council’s eco-friendly policies on energy use.
The rebellion by Conservative councillors was precipitated by an internal memo sent to all staff that said an environmental awareness officer had spotted contraband items.
You have got to be f##king me.....toasters aren't eco-friendly enough....Climate change, it all the fault of, no not the Chinese burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, nope its a bloke in Bradford making a piece of toast.
And "environmental awareness officer"...Tory cuts obviously haven't gone far enough....we are closing the library, but we still have the toaster Nazi in place.
It's the fire risk that's the issue. I've worked in private sector organisations where toasters are banned for the same reason.
28-year-old shot dead by police during 'bid to spring convicts from prison van' - as four men appear in court over 'escape plot' and it is claimed he was in the same gang as Mark Duggan
Amazing that you can still actually "spring a convict" in this day and age.
(Obvs not so successfully in this instance but, like rose sellers at traffic lights, it must work otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place.)
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
It's money. Innit. Mr Ken is of the species YACSH.
Mr Livingstone the ardent campaigner for redistribution of wealth will turn out to be just like Mr Benn the ardent campaigner against inherited wealth who carefully dodged all that Inheritance Tax so his family could inherit his wealth.
"Campaigns to change the law to (as they see it) help animals have greater difficulty in getting charitable status than their human campaign counterparts."
Yes, I can see that a "Save the plague rat." might struggle a little. They need to be cuddly to be liked. I'd go with edible ones, myself. Something a line the lines of "Save the juicy Turkey."
Enjoyable examples, but the underlying issue is that essentially the "public interest" test for charities comes down to some bloke deciding what he's willing to accept is in the public interest whether he personally agrees with it or not - thus Eton gets thumbs up and opposing circus animals gets thumbs down, whereas someone else might have reversed those decisions. It's one of those irregular verbs:
I am a campaigner for the public interest You are someone with debatable views which shouldn't necessarily get tax advantages He is a scoundrel who is leaching money from taxpayers for his perverse campaigns
One option would be to exclude campaigns - thus helping the homeless would qualify, but calling for laws to help the homeless would not - but that would mean the law helped alleviate problems but not solve them. If one gets rid of the subjectivity, you could end up with Scientology, Flat Earthers and the Ku Klux Klan getting tax advantages, so it's difficult, but the situation is not satisfactory. I'm not sure what the right answer is.
Staff working in the Grade I-listed, 19th-century building are banned from using toasters because they are a fire hazard and contravene the council’s eco-friendly policies on energy use.
The rebellion by Conservative councillors was precipitated by an internal memo sent to all staff that said an environmental awareness officer had spotted contraband items.
You have got to be f##king me.....toasters aren't eco-friendly enough....Climate change, it all the fault of, no not the Chinese burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, nope its a bloke in Bradford making a piece of toast.
And "environmental awareness officer"...Tory cuts obviously haven't gone far enough....we are closing the library, but we still have the toaster Nazi in place.
It's the fire risk that's the issue. I've worked in private sector organisations where toasters are banned for the same reason.
I get that bit, although again there should be a sensible way of dealing with it. I was really pointing out the nonsense about the fact that the council are using the bollocks about environmental impact as part of the reason for this (and this is in the Guardian, rather than the Daily Mail, so I am likely to believe they actually said this c##p).
I'm struggling to see the scandal here. If a group of people (let's call them 'ultra-orthodox Jews', for the sake of argument) wish to form a sort of religious club in which, according to their own rules, they create something called 'marriage' but which has no legal significance, then why should the law take the slightest interest in whether the group decides to annul it or not ? It has no legal existence in the first place, and in any case no-one is obliged to remain a member of the club if they don't like the eccentric rules. These are consenting adults, right?
There are two reasons for the law to get involved: (1) if parties are, as a result of such private arrangements, deprived of their English law rights or excused from their legal obligations; (b) there may be children involved.
I can see no circumstances in which English criminal law jurisdiction should be ousted for events in England. But sharia courts purport to do this. I understand that some sharia judges say that a woman should always be sexually available to her husband thus denying what is current English law, namely, that there can be rape in marriage. I find it abhorrent that a woman should be forced to endure rape within a marriage on the say-so of some so-called religious judge because we, as a society, don't have the balls to put a stop to such courts. No ifs, no buts.
IANAL, but other issues are openness and appeals. The workings of a court should have an assumption of openness, and only be closed in extreme circumstances - something family courts got wrong, IMO.
As standard you or I should be able to attend religious courts to observe what goes on. Members ('judges') should also publish their judgement in public in the same manner that 'normal' civil or law courts do, under the same criteria. People sitting in religious courts should be accountable for their decisions.
There should also be a way of appealing religious court decisions, either in another religious court of the same faith or in the civil courts. The civil courts should always take precedence, and their decisions accepted by the religious courts. But that'd be harder for religious communities to accept.
Thanks to you and RCS100 and Josias Jessop on this. I will read the articles.
As an aside, don't people and companies submit to alternative legal systems all the time?
So, sign a contract with certain companies and you accept that you will not be able to use the UK civil courts, and must instead use outside arbitration.
Indeed, whole industries have essentially opted-out of the UK civil enforcement.
For commercial contracts, that can be the case. But even then they are subject to the laws which spell out the circumstances in which this can happen and the decisions be enforced by the UK or French courts, say.
So there are various Arbitration Acts and there are all sorts of cases and international agreements etc relating to the enforcement of decisions of foreign courts etc. This is very different to the imposition of religious laws which are often in direct conflict with English law.
The basic precepts of sharia law are fundamentally at odds with the basic rights and concepts of most Western European legal systems as exemplified in the ECHR. It is untenable, in my view, that European citizens should be deprived of the rights under the ECHR and our legal systems or excused their obligations on the basis of some informal so-called religious "court". We do not live in a theocracy and I see no reason at all to subject some of our fellow citizens to a theocracy within our country.
To say Ukip transformed themselves to BNP with blazers is errant nonsense.
Indeed and while I'm no supporter of UKIP that seems absurd.
Political parties are curious beasts - some might argue the only reason the Conservative Party exists is to be in Government, when it's not it's neither fish nor fowl. Some people support parties simply because they oppose other parties and that's fair enough.
UKIP, it seems to me, has a single defined object - to campaign for Britain to leave the EU. Again, fair enough but within the coalition of LEAVE are a plethora of opinions across a range of other subjects. Pull these together under the single banner of LEAVE and it won't be surprising to hear discordant voices on other issues.
So you either have parties with members united on one issue, parties with members united on a range of issues (a core belief or ideology) or parties whose sole raison d'etre is to keep other parties out of Government and all can exist in a political system.
Whether as a unified party or as a bloc of parties, most political parties are adversarial either by virtue of ideology or on a single issue. My question to UKIP has always been - what would you do IF Britain did vote to leave ? Would you cease or would you continue to exist ?
It's the same question I would pose to the SNP in the event of full independence.
To say Ukip transformed themselves to BNP with blazers is errant nonsense.
Indeed and while I'm no supporter of UKIP that seems absurd.
Political parties are curious beasts - some might argue the only reason the Conservative Party exists is to be in Government, when it's not it's neither fish nor fowl. Some people support parties simply because they oppose other parties and that's fair enough.
UKIP, it seems to me, has a single defined object - to campaign for Britain to leave the EU. Again, fair enough but within the coalition of LEAVE are a plethora of opinions across a range of other subjects. Pull these together under the single banner of LEAVE and it won't be surprising to hear discordant voices on other issues.
So you either have parties with members united on one issue, parties with members united on a range of issues (a core belief or ideology) or parties whose sole raison d'etre is to keep other parties out of Government and all can exist in a political system.
Whether as a unified party or as a bloc of parties, most political parties are adversarial either by virtue of ideology or on a single issue. My question to UKIP has always been - what would you do IF Britain did vote to leave ? Would you cease or would you continue to exist ?
It's the same question I would pose to the SNP in the event of full independence.
It's like being a Nationalist, isn't it. The trick the SNP have pulled is that've managed to include people of non Socialist or Social Democrat views, while Plaid Cymru, for example, hasn't. Although, having said that, I'm now sure how left-wing your average Plaid voter in Merionydd actually is!
Comments
But removing it piecemeal based on which organisations sign up to the Minimally Officially Required Beliefs seems like dangerous territory to me. Who gets to decide what these beliefs are? It is not the case that "we" (in the broadest sense), or "society", or "the UK" collectively believe in gay marriage. The majority support it but it's a long way short of unanimity. If we have some Committee For The Certification of Minimally Required Beliefs, which other lodestones might they require - might they strip an organisation of its charitable status because of opinions on abortion, or insufficient condemnation of climate change/illegal immigration/vivisection/the abolition of grammar schools (delete according to sociopolitical preferences), or the fact they haven't implemented an Obesity/Smoking Public Health Information Action Plan into their schedule of sermons?
It is hardly as if gay people face unique challenges for marrying in a religiously-approved ceremony of their choice. Divorcees may not be able to marry in their preferred church. Two non-Parsis are not going to be able to get married in London's Fire Temple.
For what it's worth, if it's viewed as problematic for religious organisations to only marry people according to the precepts of that religion (which would appear to be the point, from a religious organisation's point of view, of having a religious marriage service) then why not simply remove the legal standing of religious wedding ceremonies? You can have them, should you want to satisfy your religious beliefs or you just like the ceremonial aesthetics, but if you want to make it "legal" you've got to go to the registry office. That would be my preferred solution., at any rate.
We also have to make a distinction between 'received opinions' and law.
Sharia Courts, for example. Are they resisting the imposition of received opinion, or are they breaking the law?
Interesting, Nick, and exactly my feelings ... about a Jezza-led labour party. The Jihadi John version of politics.
I'm totally biased, though. I still remember the Jezza loons from the late sixties - it was the main reason, I walked away.
I think its a shame that UKIP have decided to transform from a party obsessed with Europe but with Libertarian principles to a "BNP in blazers" party obsessed with immigration and religion.
Maybe they need to find some staff who were with the LDs 10 years ago, they knew how to win locally and build from there. The system is as it is, they need to play the game as well locally as they do with the EU elections.
Sharia law should not be allowed in this country because its precepts are incompatible with the very founding principles underlying our laws. There is an ECHR case on this, to which I have linked before which explains this very well.
Furthermore, sharia law takes away from people - women, in the main - legal rights which they have as British citizens, particularly in the area of family law. It is wrong to permit any sort of parallel legal system which does so.
Having views which are different to the majority view e.g. thinking that women should look after their children rather than work is very different from having some sort of "court" with some sort of "legal status" to impose that view on people. I recently read an article which said that sharia courts do not recognise the concept of rape within marriage and will therefore not criticise a man who does so or permit a wife a sharia divorce in such circumstances. It is intolerable to have a self-instituted so-called "court" undermining our criminal law in this way and forcing a woman to endure such violence.
"Campaigns to change the law to (as they see it) help animals have greater difficulty in getting charitable status than their human campaign counterparts."
Yes, I can see that a "Save the plague rat." might struggle a little. They need to be cuddly to be liked. I'd go with edible ones, myself. Something a line the lines of "Save the juicy Turkey."
Fairly predictable response from the Conservative partisans to Chuka Umunna's comments on FPTP. I'm not sure about AMS to be honest - it's not very proportional in truth but it's better than FPTP or AV.
I wonder if this is kite-flying as regards a possible "deal" to form a non-Conservative Government in 2020. We'll see - the "injustices" Umunna refers to do need to be addressed in my view but that's a debate for another day.
To say Ukip transformed themselves to BNP with blazers is errant nonsense.
Martin Lewis @MartinSLewis
I've today hired lawyers to investigate a judicial review to challenge govt retrospective hike in student loan costs http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2015/12/14/ive-hired-lawyers-to-investigate-judicial-reviewing-govts-retrospective-student-loan-hike/
If you are in the UK then you abide by UK law, any 'arbitration' service should be licensed by the government and should deal only with British laws.
Charities vary from case to case of course but I also wonder how many charities have significant input VAT that they can recover. As the vast majority of them do not trade in a conventional sense output VAT is less of an issue
Bequests to churches etc might be a bigger issue as I understand they are exempt from Inheritance tax. I don't really have a feel for what that might cost the taxpayer but given that it is only the super rich and the unlucky that pay much inheritance tax I suspect it is more of a theoretical than real issue.
Given the limitations I suspect the main benefits of charitable status are two fold. Firstly, it gives them a regulatory framework which satisfies potential donors that their money will be properly spent. Secondly, and linked, it acts as a kind of assurance that the money is not going to head off in some bonus (whether it actually achieves this is another matter). This seems to me to be a societal good.
I am therefore reluctant to draw the net for charities too tightly. I am more than somewhat unimpressed by charities such as Gordon Brown has set up for himself but that might just be a natural suspicion about that man. I don't think that carrying out gay marriages should be a condition of charitable status. I do think less of those organisations that refuse to do such things or hold homophobic views but I would rather keep them regulated and accountable.
As per with electoral reform Blair stuck it on a shelf and left it there.
The fundamental block was John Prescott in this case but the overall block is, as ever, that there would be a break in the link between an MP and an individual constituency (for the AMS top up).
Which is why Farage should have gone in May, the fact of the change of leader would have done the world of good to the party after a disappointing GE.
I'm a Conservative leave-leaning doubter. I want to see the best possible campaign against the EU in the referendum, which I believe is best done by the Hannans and Carswells rather than the Farages - those who can articulately argue for Leave based on what the EU is and where it's going, rather than the base instinct anti-immigrant rhetoric offered by Farage and his ilk.
The arbitration by religion is the problem, whatever the religion. And we should ensure that any decisions made in such 'courts' are not legally binding within the legal system.
Well maybe you have put your finger on the issue there. Is a state whose political elite is desperate to surrender its political independence to a transnational bureaucracy 'self respecting'?
Self-harming is more like it - and the toleration of a parallel court system handing out medieval 'justice' is just another example.
and then suddenly Farage started talking about AIDS victims coming to steal our health resources etc. which seemed to be a conscious effort to appeal to a certain sector.
They were the cherry on the parfait on Cameron's detoxification/modernisation strategy.
In an instance they made the Tory party more appealing to the centre ground.
In hindsight, Cameron's fruitcake, loonies and racist line was a brilliant and peremptory attack on UKIP.
So UKIP ended up damaging Labour more in May.
My plea to anybody is not to let personalities cloud your judgement re the EU, Mandelson and Blair want in, need I say more?
The fact is that we've allowed imported wives from eg. Pakistan and Bangldesh - who often don't speak good English - over a period of decades. As a country we owe it to these migrants to ensure they're looked after in their hour of need, that they can walk away safely from abuse without being judged and without losing everything they have.
Ukip and Farage have forced the Tories into a referendum, now better to leave the campaign to much less polarizing figures
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
To be fair the Dubai terminal did not have to take into account the impact on people's lives and livelihoods in the same way any major airport expansion in the UK does.
That is not the case with sharia law which is why it is iniquitous that (a) we have permitted their growth, with all the prejudicial consequences for British women (who happen also to be Muslims); and (b) the government has not supported the various attempts by Baroness Cox in the House of Lords to curb their spread and/or make them subject to English law.
Orthodox Beth Dins in Britain not doing enough to help 'chained wives', say campaigners
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scandal-of-women-trapped-in-marriages-by-jewish-courts-1765888.html
UKIP members and supporters of Farage have already decided on their referendum vote, they need to find people who can help with the undecided 20% in the middle.
The referendum is what they stand for as a party, it should - the odd by-election aside - be the only item on their radar for the next 18 months.
Yes that's different to the EU 2019 (if there is an EU 2019) and GE 2020 elections, they need to start canvassing now for 2020 so should incorporate the referendum questions into their canvassing.
As an example. They canvass me, I say I'm a Con at the GE but leaning Leave in the referendum. They then know that I need Carswell's pitch rather than Farage's for the referendum. This is the reason why Labour won in Oldham, they had this detailed information and UKIP didn't.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/08/jewish-court-names-and-shames-man-for-denying-wife-a-religious-divorce
I keep seeing him at Finchley Road station walking slowly up and down the stairs like the old man he is. I'm going to have to kick him down them.
Needs must - “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done." and all that.......
You are confusing two issues here, an election and a referendum. Farage has done more than any other person to force a referendum, expecting him to stand aside is unreasonable.
But moving on to an election I agree, Ukip need a new approach.
Incidentally others on here will know more about who and when the official leave organisation are, it looks like Vote Leave to me.
ISIS = Nazis
ISIS issues fatwa ordering suffocation of babies with Down’s syndrome
http://bit.ly/1OqZrp9
So, sign a contract with certain companies and you accept that you will not be able to use the UK civil courts, and must instead use outside arbitration.
Indeed, whole industries have essentially opted-out of the UK civil enforcement.
This is a man who says life under the Taliban was actually really good and they were just misunderstood, and that it was a lie that they were against girls being educated. Would he like to tell Malala Yousafzai about that?
He claims known Islamist extremists are also misunderstood and never done anything wrong. Just because he said it was wrong to kill Lee Rigby, listen to the f##king things he is saying in these interviews.
If life was so good in Afghanistan, why doesn't he f##k off back there.
Agree completely. The government in Dubai announced the expansion and there were spades in the ground shortly afterwards.
I would argue that the T5 enquiry was way too broad about numbers of flights etc when it should have been about the building of a building. The numbers of flights were irrelevant to the discussion at that time, and the numbers of passengers were addressed by the new Heathrow Express, M25 spur & widening, and additional onsite & offsite parking.
The fact is that in the UK our planning is biased in favour of small sleights to individuals and small communities, rather than the common good. Also, the new runway is proposed NORTH of the two existing runways. How the MPs living SOUTH of the airport (hello Zac!) think that they will be massively affected I don't know - if anything they will have fewer overhead flights once the new runway opens.
If the planners have real insight and talk to the aviation industry, they will allow extra flights only from new generation A350, A380 and 787 aircraft, which are noticeably quieter than their predecessors.
If not then there should be an information campaign promoting civil marriage among the Jewish community, especially women, as there should be in the Muslim community. Half of me thinks that it's time to require all couples marrying to present themselves at the registry office.
Yesterdays (wo)men.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3359096/Four-men-charged-plot-spring-convicts-prison-van-led-Wood-Green-shooting.html
Small world isn't it....
Agree completely that Farage has made the party what it is, but in business the entrepreneur that founds a company is often not the guy to run it long term and is usually forced out by the shareholders when it's clear he's a liability rather than an asset.
If the Tories have more votes, it comes down to relatively unlikely electoral maths for them not to be the second party at Holyrood.
The rebellion by Conservative councillors was precipitated by an internal memo sent to all staff that said an environmental awareness officer had spotted contraband items.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/14/bradford-tory-councillors-fight-toaster-ban
You have got to be f##king me.....toasters aren't eco-friendly enough....Climate change, it all the fault of, no not the Chinese burning massive amounts of fossil fuels, nope its a bloke in Bradford making a piece of toast.
And "environmental awareness officer"...Tory cuts obviously haven't gone far enough....we are closing the library, but we still have the toaster Nazi in place.
That view is often backed up by the local 'lawyer' the lady might speak to, that 'lawyer' not being a UK qualified Legal professional.
This is where charity shelters and access to lawyers are essential, the government should be funding them.
You are making the mistake of thinking George Osborne was a conservative.
You can vote conservative if you want. But like everywhere else in Europe, you will get social democracy.
I can see no circumstances in which English criminal law jurisdiction should be ousted for events in England. But sharia courts purport to do this. I understand that some sharia judges say that a woman should always be sexually available to her husband thus denying what is current English law, namely, that there can be rape in marriage. I find it abhorrent that a woman should be forced to endure rape within a marriage on the say-so of some so-called religious judge because we, as a society, don't have the balls to put a stop to such courts. No ifs, no buts.
See this - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/02/suspension_of_conscience.html.
If I can find this stuff in a moment, what the hell are journalists who are meant to look for stuff, for crying out loud, not doing the same.
Are there no journalists left with a bit of curiosity and scepticism???
The major issue is that those signing these contracts aren't aware that they are not legal contracts. They assume that if they get married in the UK then UK law will protect them, but those in their 'community' will try every trick in the book (such as denying access to children) to avoid anything that ends up in an actual British court.
Again just terribly unlucky bloke. Wrong place, wrong time. How was he to know that so many of his friends are Islamic extremists and that the Taliban could be a bit naughty.
And last week, some f##king idiot judge released Amram Choudary AGAIN on bail, after being re-arrested for breaking his BAIL.
ISIS must think we are totally bonkers and a load of bed wetters when they read this stuff.
(Obvs not so successfully in this instance but, like rose sellers at traffic lights, it must work otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place.)
Mr Livingstone the ardent campaigner for redistribution of wealth will turn out to be just like Mr Benn the ardent campaigner against inherited wealth who carefully dodged all that Inheritance Tax so his family could inherit his wealth.
Yet Another Champagne Socialist Hypocrite.
I am a campaigner for the public interest
You are someone with debatable views which shouldn't necessarily get tax advantages
He is a scoundrel who is leaching money from taxpayers for his perverse campaigns
One option would be to exclude campaigns - thus helping the homeless would qualify, but calling for laws to help the homeless would not - but that would mean the law helped alleviate problems but not solve them. If one gets rid of the subjectivity, you could end up with Scientology, Flat Earthers and the Ku Klux Klan getting tax advantages, so it's difficult, but the situation is not satisfactory. I'm not sure what the right answer is.
New Thread New Thread
As standard you or I should be able to attend religious courts to observe what goes on. Members ('judges') should also publish their judgement in public in the same manner that 'normal' civil or law courts do, under the same criteria. People sitting in religious courts should be accountable for their decisions.
There should also be a way of appealing religious court decisions, either in another religious court of the same faith or in the civil courts. The civil courts should always take precedence, and their decisions accepted by the religious courts. But that'd be harder for religious communities to accept.
So there are various Arbitration Acts and there are all sorts of cases and international agreements etc relating to the enforcement of decisions of foreign courts etc. This is very different to the imposition of religious laws which are often in direct conflict with English law.
The basic precepts of sharia law are fundamentally at odds with the basic rights and concepts of most Western European legal systems as exemplified in the ECHR. It is untenable, in my view, that European citizens should be deprived of the rights under the ECHR and our legal systems or excused their obligations on the basis of some informal so-called religious "court". We do not live in a theocracy and I see no reason at all to subject some of our fellow citizens to a theocracy within our country.
Political parties are curious beasts - some might argue the only reason the Conservative Party exists is to be in Government, when it's not it's neither fish nor fowl. Some people support parties simply because they oppose other parties and that's fair enough.
UKIP, it seems to me, has a single defined object - to campaign for Britain to leave the EU. Again, fair enough but within the coalition of LEAVE are a plethora of opinions across a range of other subjects. Pull these together under the single banner of LEAVE and it won't be surprising to hear discordant voices on other issues.
So you either have parties with members united on one issue, parties with members united on a range of issues (a core belief or ideology) or parties whose sole raison d'etre is to keep other parties out of Government and all can exist in a political system.
Whether as a unified party or as a bloc of parties, most political parties are adversarial either by virtue of ideology or on a single issue. My question to UKIP has always been - what would you do IF Britain did vote to leave ? Would you cease or would you continue to exist ?
It's the same question I would pose to the SNP in the event of full independence.
We make a decision on life based upon abnormality. We have even set up the state to screen for this and and enact the subsequent decision.
For the sake of clarity, I'm not a pro-lifer or anything.