Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
Hollande said that referring to Marseille Jews, where main threat is Muslim extremism. I'll be guessing that they've not had much of the anti-racism training.
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
Anti-semitism is centuries older than Islam, as we have seen periodically throughout history.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
This is great insight. What I come to PB for.
I'm trying to work out if this is sarcasm.
Nope. Genuine praise mate. In one post it busted a misapprehension I would have maintained. I rarely get that from major columnists.
@chrisg0000: '#Newsnight in search of rare mystical beastie, the scottish tory' Tory votes Scotland 2001 360,658 2005 369,388 2010 412,905 2015 434,097
How odd they didn't include 1997, the worst Conservative election in living memory Reading these posts is great because you don't have to have a Twitter to see what the Guidosphere is tweeting
But the trend has been upwards since 1997.
Errr, no - Cons got 493,057 in 1997.
Turnout
Wasn't it 71 percent in both 1997 and 2015?
I was mainly talking about the what looks to be precipitous drop between 97 and 01. Yes, Tories have gone nowhere fast in Scotland (although that'll change come 2020, Scottish Tory Surge and all that)
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
This is great insight. What I come to PB for.
I'm trying to work out if this is sarcasm.
Nope. Genuine praise mate. In one post it busted a misapprehension I would have maintained. I rarely get that from major columnists.
I agree. It's an important point that simply had not occurred to me. Thank you, @Danny565.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
Too much tolerance of intolerance?
Some of that, sure. Plus a large dollop of failing to understand the principles you loudly proclaim and follow them, no matter what the consequences. But much of it comes, I think, from putting people into either/or categories. Either you're an oppressor or a victim. If you're a victim you can't be an oppressor and so you miss the obvious point that people who are themselves victims, marginalised and discriminated against can also be capable of racism themselves.
As an example, it is possible for, say, people of Pakistani descent living in Britain to face racism by their white British fellow citizens and also be anti-Semitic or racist against, say, people of Jamaican descent.
But this obvious point seems very hard for some of the anti-racist campaigners to accept. And so you get into a sort of Victim of Racism Top Trumps Competition. Jews used to win that post-the Holocaust but now other groups are competing for the top spot. Meanwhile the very real harm that racism can do to individuals and societies is ignored.
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
It's complex. To what extent do we defer to someone's self-identification? Here's an example which shows that a person's own self-identification is not automatically conclusive:
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
Anti-semitism is centuries older than Islam, as we have seen periodically throughout history.
Of course it is. At various times in history, the position of Jews in Islamic societies - while never very good and certainly not as good as some of the propaganda would have you think - was certainly better than it was in Christian Europe.
You'd have thought that European leaders of all people would have understood that. And yet they have seemed oblivious to the likely consequences of their policies while at the same time emoting at war commemoration ceremonies.
Total wishful thinking - you conveniently ignore the progress the Tories are making in the smaller towns and the fact that the bulk of the extra Labour vote is concentrated where they least need them. You have completely failed to understand that if your theory about the old dying out worked - the Tories would have become extinct long ago. I expect Labour to come 2nd in Scotland this year but not by much which should also have you thinking. You also forget that the Tories are no more extinct in Scotland than Labour!
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
It's complex. To what extent do we defer to someone's self-identification? Here's an example which shows that a person's own self-identification is not automatically conclusive:
There's also an unresolved question as to what constitutes a male or female identity in the first place.
The debate on this has a long way to play out.
Yes that is puzzling. "Has not undergone any physical modification or taken medication." Plenty of people will say - "he's a bloke." And indeed they may be right.
I think, however, that this is a subset of a subset that we needn't allow to lead the debate.
As I understand it (and IANT...) often, perhaps usually, there *is* physical modification or medication which surely simplifies things.
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
On that analogy what is Donald Trump? I cannot even begin to imagine.
If we were watching a movie- on the one side you have people like Obama, who was so positive and optimistic and hopeful the other night, and then on the other you have Trump, or Cruz, or even Rubio and Christie who are really making themselves quite horrible when they are probably not- who would you want to win?
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
I think Maria Miller's view that gender is just a matter of self-identification is silly. It's a biological fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
This is great insight. What I come to PB for.
I'm trying to work out if this is sarcasm.
Nope. Genuine praise mate. In one post it busted a misapprehension I would have maintained. I rarely get that from major columnists.
I agree. It's an important point that simply had not occurred to me. Thank you, @Danny565.
Though the question is as always: where do we go from here?
Realistically in 2020 a survey that attempts to contact people 6 times is unlikely to be prominent and regular enough to judge the situation from. So even if leadership ratings aren't perfect if we still think they're better than the headline figures then they're still a useful proxy.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
What's strange is that such people have the talent and perseverance to rise high, but are still filled with resentment of others.
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
Too much tolerance of intolerance?
If the effect of anti-racist policies is to designate some ethnic groups as oppressors, an others as the oppressed, then that the logical outworking of such policies.
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
I think Maria Miller's view that gender is just a matter of self-identification is silly. It's a biological fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
Agreed. But I thought that the issue with transgender people is that they feel they have been born into the wrong body. In a recent OU documentary on what happens to the foetus during pregnancy there was some evidence to suggest that sometimes things can happen in such a way as to explain this - as best I remember it, it was something to do with the disconnect between when sex organs are formed and when the foetus is flooded with the relevant hormones. If these are out of sync in some way or don't happen in the correct way then you can end up with someone feeling female but born a boy.
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
I think Maria Miller's view that gender is just a matter of self-identification is silly. It's a biological fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
But the scientific evidence now is that there is a grey area. Transgender is real and not just in people's minds - there are chemical differences etc that are different in people who are transgendered that affect people just as much as whether they have a Y chromosome or not.
It is not just self-identification but it is not just "do you have a penis" either.
' As happened in Scotland: the Tories' extinction there wasn't one overnight switch, it was a gradual process as the generations who had thought it acceptable to vote Tory gradually died off'
Amazing that the Labour extinction in Scotland was achieved in a single election whereas their extinction in southern England has been a gradual process.
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
Too much tolerance of intolerance?
If the effect of anti-racist policies is to designate some ethnic groups as oppressors, an others as the oppressed, then that the logical outworking of such policies.
Might it be better then not to design such policies in this way and, rather, accept that anyone can be capable of good and bad behaviour and that you judge the behaviour rather than work forwards from the group that the person comes from?
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
It's complex. To what extent do we defer to someone's self-identification? Here's an example which shows that a person's own self-identification is not automatically conclusive:
There's also an unresolved question as to what constitutes a male or female identity in the first place.
The debate on this has a long way to play out.
I think it is a very complex issue.
I find that I have somewhat contradictory views. I'm very sympathetic towards trans people on the one hand. On the other hand I'm somewhat sympathetic towards the doubts some women (including those labelled TERFs) have. At the same time I wouldn't be sympathetic to a man who was similarly doubtful. In other words, I can see why women might be protective of the notion of femaleness but I couldn't care less who wants to be male. (I am a man, to clarify.)
I also think it might lead to a happier life if one keeps one's "identity" as small as possible and just gets on with living.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
What's strange is that such people have the talent and perseverance to rise high, but are still filled with resentment of others.
Not strange at all. The latter may lead to the former. Ambition is often forged from resentment, hatred and revenge rather than nobler motives. See many of Shakespeare's characters, for instance.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
This is great insight. What I come to PB for.
I'm trying to work out if this is sarcasm.
Nope. Genuine praise mate. In one post it busted a misapprehension I would have maintained. I rarely get that from major columnists.
I agree. It's an important point that simply had not occurred to me. Thank you, @Danny565.
Though the question is as always: where do we go from here?
Realistically in 2020 a survey that attempts to contact people 6 times is unlikely to be prominent and regular enough to judge the situation from. So even if leadership ratings aren't perfect if we still think they're better than the headline figures then they're still a useful proxy.
Well, we did have a surfeit of crap polls last time. Fewer, more expensive and more accurate polls might be an option.
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
I think Maria Miller's view that gender is just a matter of self-identification is silly. It's a biological fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
Agreed. But I thought that the issue with transgender people is that they feel they have been born into the wrong body. In a recent OU documentary on what happens to the foetus during pregnancy there was some evidence to suggest that sometimes things can happen in such a way as to explain this - as best I remember it, it was something to do with the disconnect between when sex organs are formed and when the foetus is flooded with the relevant hormones. If these are out of sync in some way or don't happen in the correct way then you can end up with someone feeling female but born a boy.
I'm sure that gender dysphoria is a real medical condition. I just get irritated by the argument that it isn't a real medical condition, and that gender is just something we choose for ourselves.
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
I think Maria Miller's view that gender is just a matter of self-identification is silly. It's a biological fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
But the scientific evidence now is that there is a grey area. Transgender is real and not just in people's minds - there are chemical differences etc that are different in people who are transgendered that affect people just as much as whether they have a Y chromosome or not.
It is not just self-identification but it is not just "do you have a penis" either.
I think that's right. While there is a certain amount of pushing the envelope of bullshit going on, transgender is a real thing that we need to deal with in a civilised way.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
What's strange is that such people have the talent and perseverance to rise high, but are still filled with resentment of others.
Not strange at all. The latter may lead to the former. Ambition is often forged from resentment, hatred and revenge rather than nobler motives. See many of Shakespeare's characters, for instance.
"Hidden from the discussion of Labour’s big increase in membership is any analysis of who has joined as fee paying individual members, but a deeper examination will show that it is overwhelmingly the middle classes who are joining. One street in Islington North, with owner-occupiers living in multi-million pound properties, had 40 people over a 12 week period join the Party. Membership is now higher in the average Tory heartland seat than in the average Labour heartland seat. Within heartland areas it is again overwhelmingly the middle classes who have joined."
Are owner-occupiers of multi-million pound mansions (as Milliband would have called their properties) "Middle Class" or are they "champagne socialists"?
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
I think Maria Miller's view that gender is just a matter of self-identification is silly. It's a biological fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
But the scientific evidence now is that there is a grey area. Transgender is real and not just in people's minds - there are chemical differences etc that are different in people who are transgendered that affect people just as much as whether they have a Y chromosome or not.
It is not just self-identification but it is not just "do you have a penis" either.
I think that's right. While there is a certain amount of pushing the envelope of bullshit going on, transgender is a real thing that we need to deal with in a civilised way.
Absolutely it is a shame that part of the problem is that the idiots who say it is all about self-identification give others a bad name.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
What's strange is that such people have the talent and perseverance to rise high, but are still filled with resentment of others.
Not strange at all. The latter may lead to the former. Ambition is often forged from resentment, hatred and revenge rather than nobler motives. See many of Shakespeare's characters, for instance.
Thats fiction though. Rhyming fiction at that.
Even rhyming fiction (tsk!) can have psychological insight and tell truth. Especially rhyming fiction by Shakespeare.
Plenty of examples from real life and history, if you prefer.
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
I think Maria Miller's view that gender is just a matter of self-identification is silly. It's a biological fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
But the scientific evidence now is that there is a grey area. Transgender is real and not just in people's minds - there are chemical differences etc that are different in people who are transgendered that affect people just as much as whether they have a Y chromosome or not.
It is not just self-identification but it is not just "do you have a penis" either.
What I don't understand is how any of us can know what being a man or a woman is like. I struggle to know what being myself is like sometimes.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
What's strange is that such people have the talent and perseverance to rise high, but are still filled with resentment of others.
Just wondering how you know that Hillary is filled with resentment.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
This is great insight. What I come to PB for.
I'm trying to work out if this is sarcasm.
Nope. Genuine praise mate. In one post it busted a misapprehension I would have maintained. I rarely get that from major columnists.
I agree. It's an important point that simply had not occurred to me. Thank you, @Danny565.
Though the question is as always: where do we go from here?
Realistically in 2020 a survey that attempts to contact people 6 times is unlikely to be prominent and regular enough to judge the situation from. So even if leadership ratings aren't perfect if we still think they're better than the headline figures then they're still a useful proxy.
Well, we did have a surfeit of crap polls last time. Fewer, more expensive and more accurate polls might be an option.
The problem is not merely expense but time. Attempting to contact the same person over six separate occasions takes time and the media (and punters) want the latest data. Imagine in a General Election with a poll taking its time to do it properly, we could be having a poll published after a second debate that was started before a first one. It would be derided as old news and obsolete ... even though it probably wouldn't be.
"Hidden from the discussion of Labour’s big increase in membership is any analysis of who has joined as fee paying individual members, but a deeper examination will show that it is overwhelmingly the middle classes who are joining. One street in Islington North, with owner-occupiers living in multi-million pound properties, had 40 people over a 12 week period join the Party. Membership is now higher in the average Tory heartland seat than in the average Labour heartland seat. Within heartland areas it is again overwhelmingly the middle classes who have joined."
Are owner-occupiers of multi-million pound mansions (as Milliband would have called their properties) "Middle Class" or are they "champagne socialists"?
IOS will be pleased, all those new members,, that ground game.. it'll do for the Tories...
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
This is great insight. What I come to PB for.
I'm trying to work out if this is sarcasm.
Nope. Genuine praise mate. In one post it busted a misapprehension I would have maintained. I rarely get that from major columnists.
I agree. It's an important point that simply had not occurred to me. Thank you, @Danny565.
You will all be over analysing yourselves into a geosynchronous orbit before long.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
What's strange is that such people have the talent and perseverance to rise high, but are still filled with resentment of others.
Just wondering how you know that Hillary is filled with resentment.
I was thinking of Nixon. No account of his career makes sense without taking account of his resentment of people like the Kennedys.
@david_herdson Toby Young is, unusually, correct. Only three Labour leaders have ever won a majority.
In 1931, Arthur Henderson was the Labour leader. He was also the last leader of the opposition - and one of three in the twentieth century - to lose his seat at a general election.
Therefore by the time Macdonald won his majority, he was leading the National Labour group and ironically, was de facto a Conservative (which party won roughly 80% of the seats in his coalition). Which really rather goes to prove the point that in order to win elections, Labour need to become Tories.
On the other hand, there can be few men who are better conservatives than Jeremy Corbyn. Not only does he want to preserve things exactly the way they were in the 1940s, but he has guaranteed a minimum of 15 years of Conservative government.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to vote Labour even while they think they can't be trusted with the economy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
This is great insight. What I come to PB for.
I'm trying to work out if this is sarcasm.
Nope. Genuine praise mate. In one post it busted a misapprehension I would have maintained. I rarely get that from major columnists.
I agree. It's an important point that simply had not occurred to me. Thank you, @Danny565.
Though the question is as always: where do we go from here?
Realistically in 2020 a survey that attempts to contact people 6 times is unlikely to be prominent and regular enough to judge the situation from. So even if leadership ratings aren't perfect if we still think they're better than the headline figures then they're still a useful proxy.
But the problem is that, if Curtice is right (a big "if"), the leadership ratings were only closer to the real result than the headline polls by accident. Apparently, the opinion polls in the lead-up to the election really were an accurate prediction of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted (with the issue being that there weren't enough people who always planned to vote Tory included in the polls in the first place). In other words, there were a significant chunk of people answering these polls who consistently said they preferred Cameron to be PM, that they thought the Tories were better on the economy, but nonetheless voted Labour in the polling booth.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
What's strange is that such people have the talent and perseverance to rise high, but are still filled with resentment of others.
It's what drives them to those heights in the first place, and then they can't shake it when they get there. Because it defines them.
Nixon felt the social inferior of many of his (junior) contemporaries his whole life.
@david_herdson Toby Young is, unusually, correct. Only three Labour leaders have ever won a majority.
In 1931, Arthur Henderson was the Labour leader. He was also the last leader of the opposition - and one of three in the twentieth century - to lose his seat at a general election.
Therefore by the time Macdonald won his majority, he was leading the National Labour group and ironically, was de facto a Conservative (which party won roughly 80% of the seats in his coalition). Which really rather goes to prove the point that in order to win elections, Labour need to become Tories.
On the other hand, there can be few men who are better conservatives than Jeremy Corbyn. Not only does he want to preserve things exactly the way they were in the 1940s, but he has guaranteed a minimum of 15 years of Conservative government.
*grabs tin hat and ducks*
I think he wants to return to beyond 1940, to the 1930's when Cambridge intellectuals and 'thinkers' were secretly joining the Communist Party.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
What's strange is that such people have the talent and perseverance to rise high, but are still filled with resentment of others.
Just wondering how you know that Hillary is filled with resentment.
Also, on the polling - John Curtice's theory suggests that the leadership ratings/economic competence ratings have been a bit of a red herring. Which is interesting, because many people (myself included) had assumed that those people who were telling pollsters that they would vote Labour, despite thinking Cameron was the better PM and the Tories were better on the economy, had actually ended up voting Tory on the day. If Curtice is to believed, those people all ended up following through and voting Labour on the day anyway.
Though, if that is true, it's questionable whether it's a good thing for Labour or not. On the one hand, it suggests it actually is possible to get certain people to conomy and they think the leader is a duffer. On the other hand, it suggests that Labour's deficits on leadership and the economy in 2015 in reality were even bigger than the polls were suggesting.
This is great insight. What I come to PB for.
I'm trying to work out if this is sarcasm.
Nope. Genuine praise mate. In one post it busted a misapprehension I would have maintained. I rarely get that from major columnists.
I agree. It's an important point that simply had not occurred to me. Thank you, @Danny565.
Though the question is as always: where do we go from here?
Realistically in 2020 a survey that attempts to contact people 6 times is unlikely to be prominent and regular enough to judge the situation from. So even if leadership ratings aren't perfect if we still think they're better than the headline figures then they're still a useful proxy.
But the problem is that, if Curtice is right (a big "if"), the leadership ratings were only closer to the real result than the headline polls by accident. Apparently, the opinion polls in the lead-up to the election really were an accurate prediction of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted (with the issue being that there weren't enough people who always planned to vote Tory included in the polls in the first place). In other words, there were a significant chunk of people answering these polls who consistently said they preferred Cameron to be PM, that they thought the Tories were better on the economy, but nonetheless voted Labour in the polling booth.
Wrt your comments on the North, I don't think the North as a whole is trending Labour (parts of it are). The Tory vote share dipped marginally in Yorkshire and Humberside, but only because UKIP polled 16%. In the North East, the Conservative vote share Rose, despite UKIP polling 17%.
But the problem is that, if Curtice is right (a big "if"), the leadership ratings were only closer to the real result than the headline polls by accident. Apparently, the opinion polls in the lead-up to the election really were an accurate prediction of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted (with the issue being that there weren't enough people who always planned to vote Tory included in the polls in the first place). In other words, there were a significant chunk of people answering these polls who consistently said they preferred Cameron to be PM, that they thought the Tories were better on the economy, but nonetheless voted Labour in the polling booth.
Could it be though that people who are politically engaged identify with a particular party, but those who are floating voters (and therefore least likely to take part in polls) look towards its most visible figure (the leader)? In which case, the clear indication that even tribal and convinced Labour voters preferred Cameron to Miliband (or Corbyn) is a pretty fair indication that floating voters are going to have the same views and vote accordingly?
It's what drives them to those heights in the first place, and then they can't shake it when they get there. Because it defines them.
Nixon felt the social inferior of many of his (junior) contemporaries his whole life.
As I recall, it led him to drink. However, while Clinton has now been the subject of twice as many police investigations as Nixon,* I've never heard her be accused of alcoholism.
*Ironically, Clinton herself was of course involved in Watergate at a very junior level - as an investigator, I hasten to add!
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
Too much tolerance of intolerance?
If the effect of anti-racist policies is to designate some ethnic groups as oppressors, an others as the oppressed, then that the logical outworking of such policies.
Might it be better then not to design such policies in this way and, rather, accept that anyone can be capable of good and bad behaviour and that you judge the behaviour rather than work forwards from the group that the person comes from?
Eventually they will have to if we are not to have a highly divided society.
Our current policies are anchored in the cultural battles of the 1960s where we were still divesting ourselves of an empire, the West economically dominated the globe and segregationist, and actively racist policies, were in force in much of the West (although not everywhere it should be emphasised)
If there was any truth in such oppressors versus the oppressed then there is certainly very little now. But we haven't moved on and, in some respects, continue to compound the problem.
On current trends, by 2100, Whites are likely to an ethnic minority in the UK, and certainly in the USA.
She lacks the essential political vitamin of likability. She lost to a Kenyan ex-Muslim and now she's going to lose to an eccentric Socialist/ Communist. Pure poison.
I don't know whether she is likeable or not. But there does seem to be an element of entitlement about her claim to be President. As if the country owed her as a result of her marriage to Clinton. Maybe unfair but that's how it sometimes come across. She may be a little bit like Nixon in that respect.
Nixon got elected President 8 years after his first run. She might like that comparison.
Maybe - but that story didn't end well. I haven't followed the email story in any detail. So I've no idea whether there is any Nixonian comparison there.
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
Hillary would certainly be the brightest president since Nixon and also the most ruthless. Like Nixon she lacks the likeability, warmth and charisma most presidents need to win, which was why both lost on their first attempt, on their second try nothing will get in their way but such determination to win at all costs could also prove her downfall as much as it did for him!
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
I think Maria Miller's view that gender is just a matter of self-identification is silly. It's a biological fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
But the scientific evidence now is that there is a grey area. Transgender is real and not just in people's minds - there are chemical differences etc that are different in people who are transgendered that affect people just as much as whether they have a Y chromosome or not.
It is not just self-identification but it is not just "do you have a penis" either.
Isn't it a kind of frightful conformism to tell people that the solution to their condition is to take a cocktail of hormones and have invasive surgery in order to 'become' the opposite sex? It seems like as a society we've regressed from the period where we had role models like David Bowie who had a much less binary view of gender.
@david_herdson Toby Young is, unusually, correct. Only three Labour leaders have ever won a majority.
In 1931, Arthur Henderson was the Labour leader. He was also the last leader of the opposition - and one of three in the twentieth century - to lose his seat at a general election.
Therefore by the time Macdonald won his majority, he was leading the National Labour group and ironically, was de facto a Conservative (which party won roughly 80% of the seats in his coalition). Which really rather goes to prove the point that in order to win elections, Labour need to become Tories.
On the other hand, there can be few men who are better conservatives than Jeremy Corbyn. Not only does he want to preserve things exactly the way they were in the 1940s, but he has guaranteed a minimum of 15 years of Conservative government.
*grabs tin hat and ducks*
I think he wants to return to beyond 1940, to the 1930's when Cambridge intellectuals and 'thinkers' were secretly joining the Communist Party.
Intellectuals know shit.
They know they're clever so stop listening to those they consider their inferiors and just start talking to and reinforcing the thinking of each other.
That's how they convince themselves of such crazy theories: be it communism, eugenics, or ever closer union.
Though the question is as always: where do we go from here?
Realistically in 2020 a survey that attempts to contact people 6 times is unlikely to be prominent and regular enough to judge the situation from. So even if leadership ratings aren't perfect if we still think they're better than the headline figures then they're still a useful proxy.
Well, we did have a surfeit of crap polls last time. Fewer, more expensive and more accurate polls might be an option.
The problem is not merely expense but time. Attempting to contact the same person over six separate occasions takes time and the media (and punters) want the latest data. Imagine in a General Election with a poll taking its time to do it properly, we could be having a poll published after a second debate that was started before a first one. It would be derided as old news and obsolete ... even though it probably wouldn't be.
Possibly there would be some use in quick-and-crap polls (essentially, all those we had in the last election campaign) with some painstaking and (hopefully) good ones that we could benchmark against.
Or pollsters just keep trying to filter and tweak.
To be honest, it does add to the fun, whether betting or pontificating, to know that the polls are dodgy.
"Hidden from the discussion of Labour’s big increase in membership is any analysis of who has joined as fee paying individual members, but a deeper examination will show that it is overwhelmingly the middle classes who are joining. One street in Islington North, with owner-occupiers living in multi-million pound properties, had 40 people over a 12 week period join the Party. Membership is now higher in the average Tory heartland seat than in the average Labour heartland seat. Within heartland areas it is again overwhelmingly the middle classes who have joined."
Good evening ladies, gentlemen and those inbetween!
This is a very interesting quirk, if true. Certainly I know a few middle class enthusiastic Corbynistas here in the provinces. Perhaps (like the Bowie love in) it is a nostalgia for decades past with the fashions that go with it. CND had big rallies in the early eighties. But also there is some truth in Ed Millibands "squeezed middle" of people particularly in the public sector who feel screwed by the Tories.
If Mann is right, could the opposite be happening - Labour becoming a less London-centric party?
Amazing that after the torrent of anti-racist policies and training and what-have-you of the last decades, the oldest, most long-standing and pernicious form of racism there has been is rising again to the extent that people are being told to hide who they are and, according to other reports, emigration of Jews from Europe is at an all time high.
All that anti-racism to so little effect...........
Too much tolerance of intolerance?
If the effect of anti-racist policies is to designate some ethnic groups as oppressors, an others as the oppressed, then that the logical outworking of such policies.
Might it be better then not to design such policies in this way and, rather, accept that anyone can be capable of good and bad behaviour and that you judge the behaviour rather than work forwards from the group that the person comes from?
It's a nice idea, but there are far too many vested interests in favour of group rights and collective punishment.
As for many others, Hilary isn't my cup of tea but guess what...US voters get to vote so it's up to them. Presumably several of them are as insightful, intelligent and all-round good eggs as us and if she's ok for them, then that is ok in my book.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
Agreed. We should accept people in all their infinite variety. We are all a minority somewhere. Worth remembering that.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
I think Maria Miller's view that gender is just a matter of self-identification is silly. It's a biological fact that I am a man and my wife is a woman.
But the scientific evidence now is that there is a grey area. Transgender is real and not just in people's minds - there are chemical differences etc that are different in people who are transgendered that affect people just as much as whether they have a Y chromosome or not.
It is not just self-identification but it is not just "do you have a penis" either.
Isn't it a kind of frightful conformism to tell people that the solution to their condition is to take a cocktail of hormones and have invasive surgery in order to 'become' the opposite sex? It seems like as a society we've regressed from the period where we had role models like David Bowie who had a much less binary view of gender.
I think that part of the trans rights movement do think like that. Fox jr had a housemate at uni who would be a boy or a girl on different days depending on how he/she felt best reflected her/his identity. It was a new one to me though I have known a few transexuals before. He/she seemed more well adjusted than most. I am not sure that synthetic hormones are great for the psyche. The trans-sexuals that I knew all seemed to have permanent pre-menstrual syndrome, so wound up walking on eggshells the whole time.
@david_herdson Toby Young is, unusually, correct. Only three Labour leaders have ever won a majority.
In 1931, Arthur Henderson was the Labour leader. He was also the last leader of the opposition - and one of three in the twentieth century - to lose his seat at a general election.
Therefore by the time Macdonald won his majority, he was leading the National Labour group and ironically, was de facto a Conservative (which party won roughly 80% of the seats in his coalition). Which really rather goes to prove the point that in order to win elections, Labour need to become Tories.
On the other hand, there can be few men who are better conservatives than Jeremy Corbyn. Not only does he want to preserve things exactly the way they were in the 1940s, but he has guaranteed a minimum of 15 years of Conservative government.
*grabs tin hat and ducks*
I think he wants to return to beyond 1940, to the 1930's when Cambridge intellectuals and 'thinkers' were secretly joining the Communist Party.
Intellectuals know shit.
They know they're clever so stop listening to those they consider their inferiors and just start talking to and reinforcing the thinking of each other.
That's how they convince themselves of such crazy theories: be it communism, eugenics, or ever closer union.
Meanwhile back to the NHS dispute, this explains how it is Hunt who has scuppered all plans to move to a 7-day service. The man is an utter imbecile. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i187
"Hidden from the discussion of Labour’s big increase in membership is any analysis of who has joined as fee paying individual members, but a deeper examination will show that it is overwhelmingly the middle classes who are joining. One street in Islington North, with owner-occupiers living in multi-million pound properties, had 40 people over a 12 week period join the Party. Membership is now higher in the average Tory heartland seat than in the average Labour heartland seat. Within heartland areas it is again overwhelmingly the middle classes who have joined."
Corbyn's core is wealthy intellectuals working in the arts, the media or the public sector, or who have inherited a pile, who have the time and inclination to try and discuss how to bring about a Marxist utopia while benefiting from rising house prices and sending their children to excellent schools and benefiting from immigrant labour thus being little affected by whoever is in government. The traditional Labour working class who are affected by poor public services, increasing competition for jobs, lack of affordable housing and rising crime have more practical concerns trying to manage their daily lives
Wrt your comments on the North, I don't think the North as a whole is trending Labour (parts of it are). The Tory vote share dipped marginally in Yorkshire and Humberside, but only because UKIP polled 16%. In the North East, the Conservative vote share Rose, despite UKIP polling 17%.
It seems there are parts of the North (urban or post-industrial) where Tories really are an endangered species, while they are surviving (not exactly flourishing) elsewhere.
Anecdotally my impression from the well-healed North Riding folk that I know is that:
* they think nothing of Cameron but mostly vote Conservative * they would never vote Labour * maybe some Kipper leanings, not sure
There is some kind of cultural divide but it's very hard to put one's finger on. These are not people who are angry about Thatcher - they all voted for her.
Meanwhile back to the NHS dispute, this explains how it is Hunt who has scuppered all plans to move to a 7-day service. The man is an utter imbecile. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i187
He scuppered their plans to move to a 7-day service, by asking them to have a 7-day service? Okay.
Meanwhile back to the NHS dispute, this explains how it is Hunt who has scuppered all plans to move to a 7-day service. The man is an utter imbecile. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i187
He scuppered their plans to move to a 7-day service, by asking them to have a 7-day service? Okay.
No he's telling them you're going to have a 7 day service my way without having an absolute clue about what he wants, without any evidence to back up his assertions (but that's par for the course with all the Tory changes), and without any money to pay for it.
@david_herdson Toby Young is, unusually, correct. Only three Labour leaders have ever won a majority.
In 1931, Arthur Henderson was the Labour leader. He was also the last leader of the opposition - and one of three in the twentieth century - to lose his seat at a general election.
Therefore by the time Macdonald won his majority, he was leading the National Labour group and ironically, was de facto a Conservative (which party won roughly 80% of the seats in his coalition). Which really rather goes to prove the point that in order to win elections, Labour need to become Tories.
On the other hand, there can be few men who are better conservatives than Jeremy Corbyn. Not only does he want to preserve things exactly the way they were in the 1940s, but he has guaranteed a minimum of 15 years of Conservative government.
*grabs tin hat and ducks*
I think he wants to return to beyond 1940, to the 1930's when Cambridge intellectuals and 'thinkers' were secretly joining the Communist Party.
Intellectuals know shit.
They know they're clever so stop listening to those they consider their inferiors and just start talking to and reinforcing the thinking of each other.
That's how they convince themselves of such crazy theories: be it communism, eugenics, or ever closer union.
Meanwhile back to the NHS dispute, this explains how it is Hunt who has scuppered all plans to move to a 7-day service. The man is an utter imbecile. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i187
You may not like it but there will be a 7 day service - the doctors are living in the past when they consider 'saturdays' to be social days. It is a manifesto commitment and it seems 40% of doctors worked the first strike day, there will be many more if the doctors are foolish enough to do a two day strike and as for withdrawing emergency cover that will see it all over for the doctors
Meanwhile back to the NHS dispute, this explains how it is Hunt who has scuppered all plans to move to a 7-day service. The man is an utter imbecile. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i187
You may not like it but there will be a 7 day service - the doctors are living in the past when they consider 'saturdays' to be social days. It is a manifesto commitment and it seems 40% of doctors worked the first strike day, there will be many more if the doctors are foolish enough to do a two day strike and as for withdrawing emergency cover that will see it all over for the doctors
Meanwhile back to the NHS dispute, this explains how it is Hunt who has scuppered all plans to move to a 7-day service. The man is an utter imbecile. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i187
You may not like it but there will be a 7 day service - the doctors are living in the past when they consider 'saturdays' to be social days. It is a manifesto commitment and it seems 40% of doctors worked the first strike day, there will be many more if the doctors are foolish enough to do a two day strike and as for withdrawing emergency cover that will see it all over for the doctors
I bet you've not followed the link have you? It eplains how a 7 day service was being worked towards and Hunt put a spanner in the works. Hunt thinks he can just click his fingers and it will happen. I am indifferent as to whether there is a 7 day service (or whatever the government means because there already IS a 7 day service) or not but I've worked for the NHS long enough) to know that unless you put the resources in with it's not going to happen either at all well, or safely.
Carry on thinking that 40% of doctors means that that doctors are not resolved to see this though. I've already told you that was spin by Hunt but in case you need reminding again.
1. 30% of doctors are not BMA members 2. Trusts have warned non-BMA members against striking 3. Last Tuesday's action did not concern emergency services hence all juniors rostered to work in emergency services would have been in work whether they were BMA members or not.
Meanwhile back to the NHS dispute, this explains how it is Hunt who has scuppered all plans to move to a 7-day service. The man is an utter imbecile. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i187
He scuppered their plans to move to a 7-day service, by asking them to have a 7-day service? Okay.
No he's telling them you're going to have a 7 day service my way without having an absolute clue about what he wants, without any evidence to back up his assertions (but that's par for the course with all the Tory changes), and without any money to pay for it.
But the NHS, when planning a 7-day service, did know what they wanted and did have evidence? I thought junior doctors pay was being cut, surely that'd help?
But the problem is that, if Curtice is right (a big "if"), the leadership ratings were only closer to the real result than the headline polls by accident. Apparently, the opinion polls in the lead-up to the election really were an accurate prediction of how the people who took part in the opinion polls voted (with the issue being that there weren't enough people who always planned to vote Tory included in the polls in the first place). In other words, there were a significant chunk of people answering these polls who consistently said they preferred Cameron to be PM, that they thought the Tories were better on the economy, but nonetheless voted Labour in the polling booth.
This is really a very good point.
I've just deleted a load of stuff I wrote about it. I need to think about it.
Meanwhile back to the NHS dispute, this explains how it is Hunt who has scuppered all plans to move to a 7-day service. The man is an utter imbecile. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i187
You may not like it but there will be a 7 day service - the doctors are living in the past when they consider 'saturdays' to be social days. It is a manifesto commitment and it seems 40% of doctors worked the first strike day, there will be many more if the doctors are foolish enough to do a two day strike and as for withdrawing emergency cover that will see it all over for the doctors
Meanwhile back to the NHS dispute, this explains how it is Hunt who has scuppered all plans to move to a 7-day service. The man is an utter imbecile. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i187
You may not like it but there will be a 7 day service - the doctors are living in the past when they consider 'saturdays' to be social days. It is a manifesto commitment and it seems 40% of doctors worked the first strike day, there will be many more if the doctors are foolish enough to do a two day strike and as for withdrawing emergency cover that will see it all over for the doctors
I bet you've not followed the link have you? It eplains how a 7 day service was being worked towards and Hunt put a spanner in the works. Hunt thinks he can just click his fingers and it will happen. I am indifferent as to whether there is a 7 day service (or whatever the government means because there already IS a 7 day service) or not but I've worked for the NHS long enough) to know that unless you put the resources in with it's not going to happen either at all well, or safely.
Carry on thinking that 40% of doctors means that that doctors are not resolved to see this though. I've already told you that was spin by Hunt but in case you need reminding again.
1. 30% of doctors are not BMA members 2. Trusts have warned non-BMA members against striking 3. Last Tuesday's action did not concern emergency services hence all juniors rostered to work in emergency services would have been in work whether they were BMA members or not.
Comments
They both strike me as being a bit like the school swots: clever, hard-working, well-behaved and thinking that therefore they ought to be the top of the class. Irritatingly, that spot is taken by someone who makes it seem easy, whom they suspect is lazy and who is not at all well-behaved but whom people still seem to like more than you. It's so unfair. This time, I'm going to show them.
You have to wonder whether the determination to succeed, the feeling that they've been cheated out of what should rightfully be theirs doesn't lead to questionable behaviour. We know the Nixon story. I wonder what the Hilary story will be.
Off-topic, I think it is fantastic that society seems to be undergoing quite a sharp jolt atm about its attitude towards transgendered people, for the good. I know @Cyclefree you were talking about how some mothers still had an issue with discussing their offsprings' homosexuality, illustrating that the fight has been won amongst younger generations, if not the older one. We are now on the journey of that acceptability for transgendered people.
Not, that said, that I think it is a huge societal issue but however many transgendered people there are, they should be afforded the same rights, respect, and approach as anyone else and this seems to be happening.
That fount of veracity on Scottish politics, the Telegraph, says so, so it must be true.
'Socialist Nicola Sturgeon steps out in £179 Barbour jacket and £130 Hunter wellies'
https://youtu.be/tBgM_Kw6PSM
As an example, it is possible for, say, people of Pakistani descent living in Britain to face racism by their white British fellow citizens and also be anti-Semitic or racist against, say, people of Jamaican descent.
But this obvious point seems very hard for some of the anti-racist campaigners to accept. And so you get into a sort of Victim of Racism Top Trumps Competition. Jews used to win that post-the Holocaust but now other groups are competing for the top spot. Meanwhile the very real harm that racism can do to individuals and societies is ignored.
It is all very unedifying.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/08/transgender-woman-raped-girl-before-transition-male-prison-davina-ayrton
There's also an unresolved question as to what constitutes a male or female identity in the first place.
The debate on this has a long way to play out.
You'd have thought that European leaders of all people would have understood that. And yet they have seemed oblivious to the likely consequences of their policies while at the same time emoting at war commemoration ceremonies.
Total wishful thinking - you conveniently ignore the progress the Tories are making in the smaller towns and the fact that the bulk of the extra Labour vote is concentrated where they least need them. You have completely failed to understand that if your theory about the old dying out worked - the Tories would have become extinct long ago. I expect Labour to come 2nd in Scotland this year but not by much which should also have you thinking. You also forget that the Tories are no more extinct in Scotland than Labour!
I think, however, that this is a subset of a subset that we needn't allow to lead the debate.
As I understand it (and IANT...) often, perhaps usually, there *is* physical modification or medication which surely simplifies things.
Actually on the having a gay child question, I found - at least in my own family - that even the older generations (my mother, for instance) had no issue with it at all. In fact, she made it clear to her grandchild that it was perfectly fine. That meant a very great deal to him, even now some 9 years later. And what she was doing, I think, was trying to arm him against the unkindnesses of strangers.
I don't think you can assume that the older generations are less accepting than younger ones. Sometimes they may hold an opinion in theory but when they bump up against the reality of an individual they love, the theory is discarded pdq. That is certainly the case in my family. And I would hope in many others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/hillary-clintons-national-lead-is-slipping-faster-in-2016-than-it-did-in-2008/
If we were watching a movie- on the one side you have people like Obama, who was so positive and optimistic and hopeful the other night, and then on the other you have Trump, or Cruz, or even Rubio and Christie who are really making themselves quite horrible when they are probably not- who would you want to win?
Realistically in 2020 a survey that attempts to contact people 6 times is unlikely to be prominent and regular enough to judge the situation from. So even if leadership ratings aren't perfect if we still think they're better than the headline figures then they're still a useful proxy.
It is not just self-identification but it is not just "do you have a penis" either.
' As happened in Scotland: the Tories' extinction there wasn't one overnight switch, it was a gradual process as the generations who had thought it acceptable to vote Tory gradually died off'
Amazing that the Labour extinction in Scotland was achieved in a single election whereas their extinction in southern England has been a gradual process.
I find that I have somewhat contradictory views. I'm very sympathetic towards trans people on the one hand. On the other hand I'm somewhat sympathetic towards the doubts some women (including those labelled TERFs) have. At the same time I wouldn't be sympathetic to a man who was similarly doubtful. In other words, I can see why women might be protective of the notion of femaleness but I couldn't care less who wants to be male. (I am a man, to clarify.)
I also think it might lead to a happier life if one keeps one's "identity" as small as possible and just gets on with living.
Plenty of examples from real life and history, if you prefer.
In 1931, Arthur Henderson was the Labour leader. He was also the last leader of the opposition - and one of three in the twentieth century - to lose his seat at a general election.
Therefore by the time Macdonald won his majority, he was leading the National Labour group and ironically, was de facto a Conservative (which party won roughly 80% of the seats in his coalition). Which really rather goes to prove the point that in order to win elections, Labour need to become Tories.
On the other hand, there can be few men who are better conservatives than Jeremy Corbyn. Not only does he want to preserve things exactly the way they were in the 1940s, but he has guaranteed a minimum of 15 years of Conservative government.
*grabs tin hat and ducks*
Nixon felt the social inferior of many of his (junior) contemporaries his whole life.
*Ironically, Clinton herself was of course involved in Watergate at a very junior level - as an investigator, I hasten to add!
Our current policies are anchored in the cultural battles of the 1960s where we were still divesting ourselves of an empire, the West economically dominated the globe and segregationist, and actively racist policies, were in force in much of the West (although not everywhere it should be emphasised)
If there was any truth in such oppressors versus the oppressed then there is certainly very little now. But we haven't moved on and, in some respects, continue to compound the problem.
On current trends, by 2100, Whites are likely to an ethnic minority in the UK, and certainly in the USA.
They know they're clever so stop listening to those they consider their inferiors and just start talking to and reinforcing the thinking of each other.
That's how they convince themselves of such crazy theories: be it communism, eugenics, or ever closer union.
Or pollsters just keep trying to filter and tweak.
To be honest, it does add to the fun, whether betting or pontificating, to know that the polls are dodgy.
This is a very interesting quirk, if true. Certainly I know a few middle class enthusiastic Corbynistas here in the provinces. Perhaps (like the Bowie love in) it is a nostalgia for decades past with the fashions that go with it. CND had big rallies in the early eighties. But also there is some truth in Ed Millibands "squeezed middle" of people particularly in the public sector who feel screwed by the Tories.
If Mann is right, could the opposite be happening - Labour becoming a less London-centric party?
Anecdotally my impression from the well-healed North Riding folk that I know is that:
* they think nothing of Cameron but mostly vote Conservative
* they would never vote Labour
* maybe some Kipper leanings, not sure
There is some kind of cultural divide but it's very hard to put one's finger on. These are not people who are angry about Thatcher - they all voted for her.
Carry on thinking that 40% of doctors means that that doctors are not resolved to see this though. I've already told you that was spin by Hunt but in case you need reminding again.
1. 30% of doctors are not BMA members
2. Trusts have warned non-BMA members against striking
3. Last Tuesday's action did not concern emergency services hence all juniors rostered to work in emergency services would have been in work whether they were BMA members or not.
I've just deleted a load of stuff I wrote about it. I need to think about it.