Spurs have just two more points than last season and fewer than under Villa Boas/Sherwood and Redknapp at the same stage of the season.
Perhaps the substantial decline of Chelsea and to a lesser extent Liverpool, Man Utd and Man City is inflating perceptions of Pochettino? Koeman has also exceeded his achievements at Southampton.
Ordinarily, the league leaders would be up in the 50+ point region by now.
Still think that there's value in Leicester's odds.
Yes.
Their ability to sustain results has been a surprise and they have also set about bolstering their squad.
Most of the usual title challengers seem gripped by collective paralysis and indecision. Managers set to depart and sets of under-performing, possibly disillusioned, players.
On Nus Ghani: Well, she was born in England, so it wouldn't be that surprising she married someone English. Most Muslims I know are in relationships with people born/brought up here.
On Nus Ghani: Well, she was born in England, so it wouldn't be that surprising she married someone English. Most Muslims I know are in relationships with people born/brought up here.
No, it's disappointingly rare for a Pakistan woman living in a Muslim dominated community to marry a White Englishman. Normally, it's culturally taboo.
Kezia reminds me of a nursery school teacher for some reason. Pleasent enough, but not an intellectual heavyweight.
Ffs, even she is going on about deprivation not aspiration. Labour: not very good at politics.
Aspiration is a form of selfishness.
Capitalism is a form of selfishness but it has freed more people from poverty, hunger, illness and fear than any other in history.
Aspiration is the only thing that has lifted us out of the stone age.
I actually disagree with Innocent Abroad. That only makes sense if you think working to fulfil your dreams and happiness is innately selfish.
It isn't because it's what you do with your successes that counts - both in terms of your time, skills and money - and in working to pursue your dreams you will be helping to fulfil those of others too.
That is a load of self-justifying codswallop. Economic growth has only ever been caused by rape, pillage and murder, as Cecil Rhodes knew full well.
"I tend to agree that the formation of the Coalition was the defining moment of Cameron's premiership (so far - the referendum has the chance to eclipse it). It was classic in its combination of pragmatism and ruthlessness."
And of course Lib Dem self sacrifice for the good of the country.
Adding the constituency and regional votes together Labour got almost exactly twice the Tory vote in 2011.
The trend for Labour is terrible. In the constituency vote they have got:
1999 38.8% 2003 34.6% 2007 32.1% 2011 31.7%
In contrast the Tory vote was almost entirely flat until 2011 when they were squeezed by the huge increase in the SNP vote. In 2011 they got 13.9%, their worst performance to date.
So the scale of the challenge for the Tories is huge. At the moment Labour have 37 seats and the Tories have 15. I can see some potential gains at constituency level from a Labour party in very poor shape, Eastwood being a real possibility and Dumfriesshire being a bit more optimistic, but the problem the Tories have is that such gains may well cost them a regional seat in exchange.
I think that Labour will indeed fall, probably to the mid 20s, and that the Tories will rise, possibly to the high teens, but cross over needs a total Labour meltdown. Not impossible but not at all likely.
On Nus Ghani: Well, she was born in England, so it wouldn't be that surprising she married someone English. Most Muslims I know are in relationships with people born/brought up here.
No, it's disappointingly rare for a Pakistan woman living in a Muslim dominated community to marry a White Englishman. Normally, it's culturally taboo.
So, you don't mean just English, what you really mean is White English. Why do you have to marry someone White English to prove that you've integrated?
Kezia reminds me of a nursery school teacher for some reason. Pleasent enough, but not an intellectual heavyweight.
Ffs, even she is going on about deprivation not aspiration. Labour: not very good at politics.
Aspiration is a form of selfishness.
Capitalism is a form of selfishness but it has freed more people from poverty, hunger, illness and fear than any other in history.
Aspiration is the only thing that has lifted us out of the stone age.
I actually disagree with Innocent Abroad. That only makes sense if you think working to fulfil your dreams and happiness is innately selfish.
It isn't because it's what you do with your successes that counts - both in terms of your time, skills and money - and in working to pursue your dreams you will be helping to fulfil those of others too.
That is a load of self-justifying codswallop. Economic growth has only ever been caused by rape, pillage and murder, as Cecil Rhodes knew full well.
I worry about saying this - because you flounced off for a month last time thinking everyone was nasty and picking on you - but how do you reach your age in life with all that experience and end up being so deeply cynical, and wrong?
I tend to agree that the formation of the Coalition was the defining moment of Cameron's premiership (so far - the referendum has the chance to eclipse it). It was classic in its combination of pragmatism and ruthlessness.
Once again, David, I don't entirely agree with your analysis which is blessed with the gift of hindsight. On the Friday after the GE, Cameron was on the edge - the fact was Labour plus the LDs and others represented a potential blocking majority to any Conservative legislation.
Cameron could have run the risk of forming the minority administration and daring the others to bring him down (they almost certainly wouldn't have immediately but it would have been akin to the Sword of Damocles hanging over his Government).
In his favour was an exhausted Labour Party and a convergence in opposition between post-Thatcherite Conservatism and Orange-Book Liberalism ("liberal conservatism" and "conservative liberalism" if you like) which made the prospect of the parties led by Cameron and Clegg (who enjoyed an excellent personal relationship and let's not forget that) working together seem less fanciful.
On top of that, you had a Conservative Party who had been out of power for 13 years (and we know, to borrow Edmund Blackadder's analogy, that the Conservative party in Opposition is akin to a broken pencil) and a Lib Dem party out of power for a century and you had the perfect scenario to make the Coalition happen.
The wonder is not that it happened - the wonder is anyone was surprised that it happened.
And yet we were surprised because no minority government in a century (and there've been a few) chose to seek to form a coalition; it just wasn't how British politics did things.
Yes, there was - as you rightly say - the opening there but he had to make it happen. The Conservatives planned ahead in case that scenario was the result and made the most of it; Labour didn't and winged it as they went along. True, Labour weren't in as good a position but until the Friday they weren't aware that there might even a game to be played; they'd have been just as unprepared had the numbers stacked up.
So yes, I am looking with the benefit of hindsight (aren't we all?), but Cameron wasn't - he prepared for it all beforehand and his 'big open offer' was done with foresight.
Miss Plato, just saw your tweet about the Danish teen who fought off a would-be rapist, using pepper spray to do so, who's going to be fined for carrying it.
Worth remembering this is going to get worse, perhaps much worse, before it gets better.
In the UK the teen would be facing a potential jail sentence. Pepper Spray is classed as a firearm with similar punishment.
Nah, not a chance.
Jury wouldn't convict if there was a realistic probability of her being imprisonned
Kezia reminds me of a nursery school teacher for some reason. Pleasent enough, but not an intellectual heavyweight.
Ffs, even she is going on about deprivation not aspiration. Labour: not very good at politics.
Aspiration is a form of selfishness.
Capitalism is a form of selfishness but it has freed more people from poverty, hunger, illness and fear than any other in history.
Aspiration is the only thing that has lifted us out of the stone age.
I actually disagree with Innocent Abroad. That only makes sense if you think working to fulfil your dreams and happiness is innately selfish.
It isn't because it's what you do with your successes that counts - both in terms of your time, skills and money - and in working to pursue your dreams you will be helping to fulfil those of others too.
That is a load of self-justifying codswallop. Economic growth has only ever been caused by rape, pillage and murder, as Cecil Rhodes knew full well.
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good, as any fule kno.
A girl’s diary which contained details about her relationship with an alleged serial child abuser ‘disappeared’ after being given to police, a court heard.
Adding the constituency and regional votes together Labour got almost exactly twice the Tory vote in 2011.
The trend for Labour is terrible. In the constituency vote they have got:
1999 38.8% 2003 34.6% 2007 32.1% 2011 31.7%
In contrast the Tory vote was almost entirely flat until 2011 when they were squeezed by the huge increase in the SNP vote. In 2011 they got 13.9%, their worst performance to date.
So the scale of the challenge for the Tories is huge. At the moment Labour have 37 seats and the Tories have 15. I can see some potential gains at constituency level from a Labour party in very poor shape, Eastwood being a real possibility and Dumfriesshire being a bit more optimistic, but the problem the Tories have is that such gains may well cost them a regional seat in exchange.
I think that Labour will indeed fall, probably to the mid 20s, and that the Tories will rise, possibly to the high teens, but cross over needs a total Labour meltdown. Not impossible but not at all likely.
If Labour's solution to their Scottish woes is to send Corbyn and McIRA up there then they are in big trouble. How are the remaining unionists who support SLAB going to react to a pair of idiots who support a unified Ireland? If the Tories are smart they need to hammer home that they are the only party who still support the Union, Labour's leadership is full of IRA supporters and anti-unionists. A vote for the SNP is a vote against the Union which people already know, a vote for SLAB is now also a vote against the Union.
On Nus Ghani: Well, she was born in England, so it wouldn't be that surprising she married someone English. Most Muslims I know are in relationships with people born/brought up here.
No, it's disappointingly rare for a Pakistan woman living in a Muslim dominated community to marry a White Englishman. Normally, it's culturally taboo.
So, you don't mean just English, what you really mean is White English. Why do you have to marry someone White English to prove that you've integrated?
Ah, I see. You wanted to score points by hinging an argument on the definition of English, rather than engage in the substance of what I was saying.
Adding the constituency and regional votes together Labour got almost exactly twice the Tory vote in 2011.
The trend for Labour is terrible. In the constituency vote they have got:
1999 38.8% 2003 34.6% 2007 32.1% 2011 31.7%
In contrast the Tory vote was almost entirely flat until 2011 when they were squeezed by the huge increase in the SNP vote. In 2011 they got 13.9%, their worst performance to date.
So the scale of the challenge for the Tories is huge. At the moment Labour have 37 seats and the Tories have 15. I can see some potential gains at constituency level from a Labour party in very poor shape, Eastwood being a real possibility and Dumfriesshire being a bit more optimistic, but the problem the Tories have is that such gains may well cost them a regional seat in exchange.
I think that Labour will indeed fall, probably to the mid 20s, and that the Tories will rise, possibly to the high teens, but cross over needs a total Labour meltdown. Not impossible but not at all likely.
Thanks David. Is it possible to bet on this anywhere? (2nd place I mean)
Adding the constituency and regional votes together Labour got almost exactly twice the Tory vote in 2011.
The trend for Labour is terrible. In the constituency vote they have got:
1999 38.8% 2003 34.6% 2007 32.1% 2011 31.7%
In contrast the Tory vote was almost entirely flat until 2011 when they were squeezed by the huge increase in the SNP vote. In 2011 they got 13.9%, their worst performance to date.
So the scale of the challenge for the Tories is huge. At the moment Labour have 37 seats and the Tories have 15. I can see some potential gains at constituency level from a Labour party in very poor shape, Eastwood being a real possibility and Dumfriesshire being a bit more optimistic, but the problem the Tories have is that such gains may well cost them a regional seat in exchange.
I think that Labour will indeed fall, probably to the mid 20s, and that the Tories will rise, possibly to the high teens, but cross over needs a total Labour meltdown. Not impossible but not at all likely.
If Labour's solution to their Scottish woes is to send Corbyn and McIRA up there then they are in big trouble. How are the remaining unionists who support SLAB going to react to a pair of idiots who support a unified Ireland? If the Tories are smart they need to hammer home that they are the only party who still support the Union, Labour's leadership is full of IRA supporters and anti-unionists. A vote for the SNP is a vote against the Union which people already know, a vote for SLAB is now also a vote against the Union.
That is exactly what Ruth Davidson is doing. She has made it clear that the more than 2m people who voted No are her pool and she is going fishing. But she may need a bigger boat.
Kezia reminds me of a nursery school teacher for some reason. Pleasent enough, but not an intellectual heavyweight.
Ffs, even she is going on about deprivation not aspiration. Labour: not very good at politics.
Aspiration is a form of selfishness.
Capitalism is a form of selfishness but it has freed more people from poverty, hunger, illness and fear than any other in history.
Aspiration is the only thing that has lifted us out of the stone age.
I actually disagree with Innocent Abroad. That only makes sense if you think working to fulfil your dreams and happiness is innately selfish.
It isn't because it's what you do with your successes that counts - both in terms of your time, skills and money - and in working to pursue your dreams you will be helping to fulfil those of others too.
That is a load of self-justifying codswallop. Economic growth has only ever been caused by rape, pillage and murder, as Cecil Rhodes knew full well.
Oh dear. Oh deary dear. You should read The Wealth of Nations. Or alternatively The Wealth And poverty of Nations (by David Landes). Societies tend to come in the Make or the Take varieties. It is the Make ones that become wealthy. To make Make work you need stable government, property rights, the rule of law, free markets, societal trust and all that good stuff. The things that, ahem, western civilisations have been quite good at historically. The Take societies think more in terms of 'bash my neighbour and grab his shit'. But this is a zero sum transaction. It adds nothing to the world's wealth, but merely redistributes it.
Sure western colonial history involved a lot of Taking (land, people, resources, etc - we weren't angels) but we then put the taken factors to work. We Made. We Made ourselves rich and powerful. Some cultures cannot Make because they cannot culturally put in place the necessary enablers of my first paragraph. That is the key difference. What will happen to the Middle East once they Taken all the oil out? Are they culturally capable of Making anything anyone wants?
This hard truth also explains the abject failure of socialism. It's a Take religion not a Make one.
On Nus Ghani: Well, she was born in England, so it wouldn't be that surprising she married someone English. Most Muslims I know are in relationships with people born/brought up here.
No, it's disappointingly rare for a Pakistan woman living in a Muslim dominated community to marry a White Englishman. Normally, it's culturally taboo.
So, you don't mean just English, what you really mean is White English. Why do you have to marry someone White English to prove that you've integrated?
No, but being comfortable with it shows a level of integration that the Pakistani (and Muslim in general) community in Britain has failed to reach. 20 years ago when I was growing up the attitude among Indians was "no BMW" BMW stands for Black, Muslim, White. Fast forwards 20 years and I'm in a long term relationship my very white girlfriend, my cousin is dating a Black African man who's family are from Nigeria (though he was born here and is British). The "M" is something that I think will always stand, there is too much historical animosity there, but in 20 years attitudes against inter-racial marriage has changed significantly in the Indian community, so much that marriage outside of one's own race is becoming the norm. Of my Indian friends less than half are married or dating other Indians. I don't know what the situation is in the Pakistani/Muslim community in Britain, but I can hazard a guess that any Pakistani woman who wants to marry outside of the community (family in some cases) will be shunned and disowned.
Miss Plato, just saw your tweet about the Danish teen who fought off a would-be rapist, using pepper spray to do so, who's going to be fined for carrying it.
Worth remembering this is going to get worse, perhaps much worse, before it gets better.
In the UK the teen would be facing a potential jail sentence. Pepper Spray is classed as a firearm with similar punishment.
I doubt if it would be hard to plead self-defence.
Adding the constituency and regional votes together Labour got almost exactly twice the Tory vote in 2011.
The trend for Labour is terrible. In the constituency vote they have got:
1999 38.8% 2003 34.6% 2007 32.1% 2011 31.7%
In contrast the Tory vote was almost entirely flat until 2011 when they were squeezed by the huge increase in the SNP vote. In 2011 they got 13.9%, their worst performance to date.
So the scale of the challenge for the Tories is huge. At the moment Labour have 37 seats and the Tories have 15. I can see some potential gains at constituency level from a Labour party in very poor shape, Eastwood being a real possibility and Dumfriesshire being a bit more optimistic, but the problem the Tories have is that such gains may well cost them a regional seat in exchange.
I think that Labour will indeed fall, probably to the mid 20s, and that the Tories will rise, possibly to the high teens, but cross over needs a total Labour meltdown. Not impossible but not at all likely.
Thanks David. Is it possible to bet on this anywhere? (2nd place I mean)
The Tory MP's pinned tweet about blind footballers and morris dancers -- does he know Suffolk Gazette is a spoof site? What did David Cameron say about twitter?
Miss Plato, just saw your tweet about the Danish teen who fought off a would-be rapist, using pepper spray to do so, who's going to be fined for carrying it.
Worth remembering this is going to get worse, perhaps much worse, before it gets better.
In the UK the teen would be facing a potential jail sentence. Pepper Spray is classed as a firearm with similar punishment.
I doubt if it would be hard to plead self-defence.
Self defence is not a defence to possession of the pepper spray. It would probably be charged on summary complaint so there would be no jury either, especially if the accused had no record. That can get up to 4 months but a community based sentence would be far more likely.
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
Adding the constituency and regional votes together Labour got almost exactly twice the Tory vote in 2011.
The trend for Labour is terrible. In the constituency vote they have got:
1999 38.8% 2003 34.6% 2007 32.1% 2011 31.7%
In contrast the Tory vote was almost entirely flat until 2011 when they were squeezed by the huge increase in the SNP vote. In 2011 they got 13.9%, their worst performance to date.
So the scale of the challenge for the Tories is huge. At the moment Labour have 37 seats and the Tories have 15. I can see some potential gains at constituency level from a Labour party in very poor shape, Eastwood being a real possibility and Dumfriesshire being a bit more optimistic, but the problem the Tories have is that such gains may well cost them a regional seat in exchange.
I think that Labour will indeed fall, probably to the mid 20s, and that the Tories will rise, possibly to the high teens, but cross over needs a total Labour meltdown. Not impossible but not at all likely.
Thanks David. Is it possible to bet on this anywhere? (2nd place I mean)
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
People have made their minds up about Jeremy Corbyn and they don't like what they see. When you're on -39% after four months as Leader of the Opposition, there's no way back. Corbyn is going out of his way to pick unpopular policies to champion.
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
If he was competent this would probably be true. I thought that the Google settlement was missing a zero myself and it would be hard to defend against persistent forensic questioning but who are we kidding?
Kezia reminds me of a nursery school teacher for some reason. Pleasent enough, but not an intellectual heavyweight.
Ffs, even she is going on about deprivation not aspiration. Labour: not very good at politics.
Aspiration is a form of selfishness.
Capitalism is a form of selfishness but it has freed more people from poverty, hunger, illness and fear than any other in history.
Aspiration is the only thing that has lifted us out of the stone age.
I actually disagree with Innocent Abroad. That only makes sense if you think working to fulfil your dreams and happiness is innately selfish.
It isn't because it's what you do with your successes that counts - both in terms of your time, skills and money - and in working to pursue your dreams you will be helping to fulfil those of others too.
That is a load of self-justifying codswallop. Economic growth has only ever been caused by rape, pillage and murder, as Cecil Rhodes knew full well.
Labour must have done a lot of raping since 1997 then...in Rotherham perhaps?
Kezia reminds me of a nursery school teacher for some reason. Pleasent enough, but not an intellectual heavyweight.
Ffs, even she is going on about deprivation not aspiration. Labour: not very good at politics.
Aspiration is a form of selfishness.
And?
I infer you approve of selfishness. If I err, I will apologise.
Enlightened self-interest is an excellent thing. The only sensible basis for public policy.
It's a but like 'please put on your own oxygen mask before helping others' in an aeroplane emergency.
Yes, you could argue that strictly speaking putting yourself first is 'selfish' but, if you don't, there might be nobody who's in any position to help others, and everyone could die.
On Nus Ghani: Well, she was born in England, so it wouldn't be that surprising she married someone English. Most Muslims I know are in relationships with people born/brought up here.
No, it's disappointingly rare for a Pakistan woman living in a Muslim dominated community to marry a White Englishman. Normally, it's culturally taboo.
So, you don't mean just English, what you really mean is White English. Why do you have to marry someone White English to prove that you've integrated?
No, but being comfortable with it shows a level of integration that the Pakistani (and Muslim in general) community in Britain has failed to reach. 20 years ago when I was growing up the attitude among Indians was "no BMW" BMW stands for Black, Muslim, White. Fast forwards 20 years and I'm in a long term relationship my very white girlfriend, my cousin is dating a Black African man who's family are from Nigeria (though he was born here and is British). The "M" is something that I think will always stand, there is too much historical animosity there, but in 20 years attitudes against inter-racial marriage has changed significantly in the Indian community, so much that marriage outside of one's own race is becoming the norm. Of my Indian friends less than half are married or dating other Indians. I don't know what the situation is in the Pakistani/Muslim community in Britain, but I can hazard a guess that any Pakistani woman who wants to marry outside of the community (family in some cases) will be shunned and disowned.
You can be perfectly fine with inter-racial marriage, and yet not be married to someone of a different race. I'm mixed race and I've dated guys of a different race in the past. It's about being appreciating, and not being discriminatory towards those who happen to fall in love with those of a different race not making a big deal, or celebrating a kind of relationship that isn't any more better (or worse) than intra-racial relationships. In this sense it's neither here nor there for me how many of my friends date outside their race, and whether it becomes the norm for them to do so. You're cousins boyfriend would be Black British, first all, so I don't get your initial description of him as Black African. My mum's parents are from Jamaica, yet she would never describe herself as Black Caribbean first and foremost, but British. I also don't get the reference to your girlfriend being 'very' white (are there degrees of whiteness or something?)
And yet we were surprised because no minority government in a century (and there've been a few) chose to seek to form a coalition; it just wasn't how British politics did things.
Yes, there was - as you rightly say - the opening there but he had to make it happen. The Conservatives planned ahead in case that scenario was the result and made the most of it; Labour didn't and winged it as they went along. True, Labour weren't in as good a position but until the Friday they weren't aware that there might even a game to be played; they'd have been just as unprepared had the numbers stacked up.
So yes, I am looking with the benefit of hindsight (aren't we all?), but Cameron wasn't - he prepared for it all beforehand and his 'big open offer' was done with foresight.
As indeed did Nick Clegg and the LDs (they planned for dealing with both Labour and the Conservatives of course). No one in the LD camp was surprised by Cameron's move on the Friday afternoon but the accounts I've read show how surprised the LD team was by how much the Conservatives conceded.
The other surprising aspect was the Labour response and this has proved to be pivotal. I think the LDs hoped (not unreasonably) to be able to play off two competing offers but the numbers weren't really there for the deal with Labour but not was the will from the Labour side. That meant that by the Monday the options were either to walk away (with all the vitriol that would have been heaped on Clegg and the party) or deal with the Conservatives.
In the end, Labour made the Coalition happen because they wanted to go into Opposition after 13 years in Government. We will never know whether had a similar scenario occurred in 1992, John Major would have wanted to carry on.
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
It's lining up well for Osborne: he now looks like he's letting big business off tax, with further corporation tax cuts to come, whilst at the same time raiding middle class pensions with a tax rise.
Meanwhile, more criticism of the SNP's education policy:
The Law Society of Scotland, which in a report pitched at all the parties ahead of the Holyrood elections in May, says that the free tuition policy has contributed to what it calls a resource transfer from low-income to high-income households. It also points out that the government is doing this at a time when access to university for the poorest is already pitiful in Scotland – much worse in fact than it is anywhere else in the UK.
Miss Plato, just saw your tweet about the Danish teen who fought off a would-be rapist, using pepper spray to do so, who's going to be fined for carrying it.
Worth remembering this is going to get worse, perhaps much worse, before it gets better.
In the UK the teen would be facing a potential jail sentence. Pepper Spray is classed as a firearm with similar punishment.
I doubt if it would be hard to plead self-defence.
To assault, for example, yes. But to illegal possession of a firearm *before* the incident?
On Nus Ghani: Well, she was born in England, so it wouldn't be that surprising she married someone English. Most Muslims I know are in relationships with people born/brought up here.
No, it's disappointingly rare for a Pakistan woman living in a Muslim dominated community to marry a White Englishman. Normally, it's culturally taboo.
So, you don't mean just English, what you really mean is White English. Why do you have to marry someone White English to prove that you've integrated?
No, but being comfortable with it shows a level of integration that the Pakistani (and Muslim in general) community in Britain has failed to reach. 20 years ago when I was growing up the attitude among Indians was "no BMW" BMW stands for Black, Muslim, White. Fast forwards 20 years and I'm in a long term relationship my very white girlfriend, my cousin is dating a Black African man who's family are from Nigeria (though he was born here and is British). The "M" is something that I think will always stand, there is too much historical animosity there, but in 20 years attitudes against inter-racial marriage has changed significantly in the Indian community, so much that marriage outside of one's own race is becoming the norm. Of my Indian friends less than half are married or dating other Indians. I don't know what the situation is in the Pakistani/Muslim community in Britain, but I can hazard a guess that any Pakistani woman who wants to marry outside of the community (family in some cases) will be shunned and disowned.
You can be perfectly fine with inter-racial marriage, and yet not be married to someone of a different race. I'm mixed race and I've dated guys of a different race in the past. It's about being appreciating, and not being discriminatory towards those who happen to fall in love with those of a different race not making a big deal, or celebrating a kind of relationship that isn't any more better (or worse) than intra-racial relationships. In this sense it's neither here nor there for me how many of my friends date outside their race, and whether it becomes the norm for them to do so. You're cousins boyfriend would be Black British, first all, so I don't get your initial description of him as Black African. My mum's parents are from Jamaica, yet she would never describe herself as Black Caribbean first and foremost, but British. I also don't get the reference to your girlfriend being 'very' white (are there degrees of whiteness or something?)
So basically you're nitpicking and avoiding the argument completely. What a surprise.
Miss Plato, just saw your tweet about the Danish teen who fought off a would-be rapist, using pepper spray to do so, who's going to be fined for carrying it.
Worth remembering this is going to get worse, perhaps much worse, before it gets better.
In the UK the teen would be facing a potential jail sentence. Pepper Spray is classed as a firearm with similar punishment.
I doubt if it would be hard to plead self-defence.
To assault, for example, yes. But to illegal possession of a firearm *before* the incident?
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
It's lining up well for Osborne: he now looks like he's letting big business off tax, with further corporation tax cuts to come, whilst at the same time raiding middle class pensions with a tax rise.
Genius.
Indeed. I honestly don't understand his thought process at the moment, a couple of years ago I might have considered voting for him, but today there is no way that I would even think about voting for him. Even if the opponent is IDS bad I will vote for that person. He is a disaster as chancellor and would be a disaster as PM and leader of the party.
Corbyn won't like being lumped in with Le Pen and Trump but he's right - it's all part of the same phenomenon.
Except that Donald Trump is a New York liberal. Much of UKIP is not particularly extreme. The FN, on the other hand, I'd agree with. But I'd also argue that their chance of achieving power in France next year is pretty slim.
Corbyn won't like being lumped in with Le Pen and Trump but he's right - it's all part of the same phenomenon.
It's a very odd analysis. Hague's argument seems to be that the political class has been let down by the technocrats running the economy which has allowed outsiders to rise to prominence. It's as if he thinks the real tragedy, if we were to have another financial crisis, would be that people like him, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton would be further discredited.
So basically you're nitpicking and avoiding the argument completely. What a surprise.
I've not nit-picked, nor have I avoided your argument. I'll break down my reply to you.
Your first point appeared to argue that by being married to someone who is White English showed a significant level of integration, and being accepting of inter-racial marriage. I replied that you don't have to be in an inter-racial to be accepting of such marriages, or be successfully integrated. That it is more about attitudes than anything else. I then responded to your point on inter-relationships becoming the norm,that the main point is that these relationships are not seen as any different from intra-racial relationships, not that they are celebrated, seen as better, or seen as worse.
You then picked out two examples in your personal life. I found your descriptions of such fairly curious, and I don't see how they qualify as nitpicking. It is odd to describe someone who is Black, and British first and foremost as Black African. It is odd to describe someone as 'very' white.
A girl’s diary which contained details about her relationship with an alleged serial child abuser ‘disappeared’ after being given to police, a court heard.
Sorry but we need to see police and social workers held individually accountable for this sort of thing. There is no trust in official reports where 'lessons' are 'learned' yet no-one ends up in prison.
The system has failed hundreds of the most vulnerable young girls in Rotherham and thousands more elsewhere, people need to be held to account for this systemic failure in child protection.
The fact that even after the ISIS attacks the French still tactically voted against Le Pen says everything. As for Corbyn: he's really far more reflective of a Hard Left who have always existed, and will always exist than some resurgent extreme, anti-establishment feeling.
Corbyn won't like being lumped in with Le Pen and Trump but he's right - it's all part of the same phenomenon.
Except that Donald Trump is a New York liberal. Much of UKIP is not particularly extreme. The FN, on the other hand, I'd agree with. But I'd also argue that their chance of achieving power in France next year is pretty slim.
True, but then UKIP has already won one national election and Trump may win another. The reaction against the mainstream is already well-advanced and Hague's comments about further economic trouble down the line (or some other currently-unforeseen crisis) would further boost the extremes.
Now you can argue that UKIP isn't extreme and it's not. Indeed, arguably it's less extreme than Corbyn's Labour is (though Corbyn's election is part of the same phenomenon). But they're certainly further from the centre than Con-Lab-LD-SNP and part of the centrifugal process we're seeing across Western democracies in general. There's no reason why they need be the limit.
Corbyn won't like being lumped in with Le Pen and Trump but he's right - it's all part of the same phenomenon.
Except that Donald Trump is a New York liberal. Much of UKIP is not particularly extreme. The FN, on the other hand, I'd agree with. But I'd also argue that their chance of achieving power in France next year is pretty slim.
How many New York liberals want to kill the families of terrorists? As New York businessman he say things that get plaudits with local business contacts and politicians. That don't say much.
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
It's lining up well for Osborne: he now looks like he's letting big business off tax, with further corporation tax cuts to come, whilst at the same time raiding middle class pensions with a tax rise.
Genius.
I thought Steve Hilton put it well when he said most of the people who attend Davos dream of a world ruled by an international bureaucracy. I think Osborne is one of them.
Corbyn won't like being lumped in with Le Pen and Trump but he's right - it's all part of the same phenomenon.
Except that Donald Trump is a New York liberal. Much of UKIP is not particularly extreme. The FN, on the other hand, I'd agree with. But I'd also argue that their chance of achieving power in France next year is pretty slim.
Hague is just parroting the establishment lines against the new upstarts that are threatening the old order. I don't find the article insightful or particularly interesting. It is just a rehash of "waaaaah, my friend Hilary is going to get beaten by some communist".
So basically you're nitpicking and avoiding the argument completely. What a surprise.
I've not nit-picked, nor have I avoided your argument. I'll break down my reply to you.
Your first point appeared to argue that by being married to someone who is White English showed a significant level of integration, and being accepting of inter-racial marriage. I replied that you don't have to be in an inter-racial to be accepting of such marriages, or be successfully integrated. That it is more about attitudes than anything else. I then responded to your point on inter-relationships becoming the norm,that the main point is that these relationships are not seen as any different from intra-racial relationships, not that they are celebrated, seen as better, or seen as worse.
You then picked out two examples in your personal life. I found your descriptions of such fairly curious, and I don't see how they qualify as nitpicking. It is odd to describe someone who is Black, and British first and foremost as Black African. It is odd to describe someone as 'very' white.
Can't judge on individual basis, but low rates of marriage outside your ethnic group does suggest segregation.
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
It's lining up well for Osborne: he now looks like he's letting big business off tax, with further corporation tax cuts to come, whilst at the same time raiding middle class pensions with a tax rise.
Genius.
Dave's going to get a shellacking if Jezza leads and continues for all his questions on the bedroom tax appeal.
I thought Steve Hilton put it well when he said most of the people who attend Davos dream of a world ruled by an international bureaucracy. I think Osborne is one of them.
What utter nonsense (the Osborne bit, Steve Hilton had a point on the Davos bit).
So basically you're nitpicking and avoiding the argument completely. What a surprise.
I've not nit-picked, nor have I avoided your argument. I'll break down my reply to you.
Your first point appeared to argue that by being married to someone who is White English showed a significant level of integration, and being accepting of inter-racial marriage. I replied that you don't have to be in an inter-racial to be accepting of such marriages, or be successfully integrated. That it is more about attitudes than anything else. I then responded to your point on inter-relationships becoming the norm,that the main point is that these relationships are not seen as any different from intra-racial relationships, not that they are celebrated, seen as better, or seen as worse.
You then picked out two examples in your personal life. I found your descriptions of such fairly curious, and I don't see how they qualify as nitpicking. It is odd to describe someone who is Black, and British first and foremost as Black African. It is odd to describe someone as 'very' white.
Can't judge on individual basis, but low rates of marriage outside your ethnic group does suggest segregation.
Why? Most White people will marry white people, I don't think that most of them are racist because they don't have partners or spouses who are from an Ethnicity minority.
Corbyn won't like being lumped in with Le Pen and Trump but he's right - it's all part of the same phenomenon.
It's a very odd analysis. Hague's argument seems to be that the political class has been let down by the technocrats running the economy which has allowed outsiders to rise to prominence. It's as if he thinks the real tragedy, if we were to have another financial crisis, would be that people like him, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton would be further discredited.
To an extent, it is that. And politicians were let down by technocrats but then they gave them the rope and made a virtue of it to the public (not least because the politicians' own past failures meant that the public trusted - and trusts - technocrats more).
But if the mainstream are replaced by extremes then that will be a tragedy, not for the politicians themselves who've brought on their own downfall, but for the people who'll have to put up with erratic, damaging and potentially downright dangerous government.
So basically you're nitpicking and avoiding the argument completely. What a surprise.
I've not nit-picked, nor have I avoided your argument. I'll break down my reply to you.
Your first point appeared to argue that by being married to someone who is White English showed a significant level of integration, and being accepting of inter-racial marriage. I replied that you don't have to be in an inter-racial to be accepting of such marriages, or be successfully integrated. That it is more about attitudes than anything else. I then responded to your point on inter-relationships becoming the norm,that the main point is that these relationships are not seen as any different from intra-racial relationships, not that they are celebrated, seen as better, or seen as worse.
You then picked out two examples in your personal life. I found your descriptions of such fairly curious, and I don't see how they qualify as nitpicking. It is odd to describe someone who is Black, and British first and foremost as Black African. It is odd to describe someone as 'very' white.
You have completely avoided it and are still nitpicking. Why you can't accept that a woman from a Pakistani background marrying a white English person is rare and actually quite brave is quite telling. It doesn't fit your narrative.
I think that inter-racial marriage is something that should be celebrated, at least for now. In a few years maybe as a country we will look back at it all and wonder why there was so much controversy over it, but we aren't at that stage. There is still a lot of resistance in certain communities who refuse to integrate into British society, and inter-marriage is just a symptom of that failure.
Kezia reminds me of a nursery school teacher for some reason. Pleasent enough, but not an intellectual heavyweight.
Ffs, even she is going on about deprivation not aspiration. Labour: not very good at politics.
Aspiration is a form of selfishness.
And?
I infer you approve of selfishness. If I err, I will apologise.
Enlightened self-interest is an excellent thing. The only sensible basis for public policy.
It's a but like 'please put on your own oxygen mask before helping others' in an aeroplane emergency.
Yes, you could argue that strictly speaking putting yourself first is 'selfish' but, if you don't, there might be nobody who's in any position to help others, and everyone could die.
There's very good reasoning behind that message. You might have only a dozen seconds between the masks dropping and people starting to pass out of hypoxia. It's the default position of especially parents to want to help their children before themselves, so it's absolutely necessary to remind them that in this specific case they need to look after No.1 first. But whenever I'm on a commercial plane 90% of people don't pay attention to the briefing anyway, I often wonder how many of them I will have to pass on the way out in an emergency. :-(
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
It's lining up well for Osborne: he now looks like he's letting big business off tax, with further corporation tax cuts to come, whilst at the same time raiding middle class pensions with a tax rise.
Genius.
Indeed. I honestly don't understand his thought process at the moment, a couple of years ago I might have considered voting for him, but today there is no way that I would even think about voting for him. Even if the opponent is IDS bad I will vote for that person. He is a disaster as chancellor and would be a disaster as PM and leader of the party.
His problem is his lack of empathy and emotional intelligence. There's no group he wouldn't screw over if he thought there was a tactical advantage in doing so to further his strategic goals. Which is basically for the blue rosette to win.
The problem is that everyone notices this, and that he doesn't really care about them. So he has to rely on locking up the nomination with patronage, as he can't exactly use charm.
I've heard more than one Tory MP (admittedly not part of the inner circle) use the same four letter word to describe him (sometimes preceded by 'total') when asked for their opinion of him.
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
It's lining up well for Osborne: he now looks like he's letting big business off tax, with further corporation tax cuts to come, whilst at the same time raiding middle class pensions with a tax rise.
Genius.
Dave's going to get a shellacking if Jezza leads and continues for all his questions on the bedroom tax appeal.
Might blow JJ's cover of having "normal" people questions answered. I somehow doubt that "normal" members of the public saw the judgment and compiled a well thought out letter / email containing a question for PMQ's, that was then processed at JJ HQ, the individual background checked etc etc etc all in the past 2 hrs.
So basically you're nitpicking and avoiding the argument completely. What a surprise.
I've not nit-picked, nor have I avoided your argument. I'll break down my reply to you.
Your first point appeared to argue that by being married to someone who is White English showed a significant level of integration, and being accepting of inter-racial marriage. I replied that you don't have to be in an inter-racial to be accepting of such marriages, or be successfully integrated. That it is more about attitudes than anything else. I then responded to your point on inter-relationships becoming the norm,that the main point is that these relationships are not seen as any different from intra-racial relationships, not that they are celebrated, seen as better, or seen as worse.
You then picked out two examples in your personal life. I found your descriptions of such fairly curious, and I don't see how they qualify as nitpicking. It is odd to describe someone who is Black, and British first and foremost as Black African. It is odd to describe someone as 'very' white.
Can't judge on individual basis, but low rates of marriage outside your ethnic group does suggest segregation.
Silly silly silly.
" low rates of marriage outside your ethnic group does suggest segregation."
or low rates of marriage outside your ethnic group does suggest you may have little choice if your ethnic group is dominant so you have limited choices outside of it.
If you are white British, you are in a c 80% majority. So only 20% of possible partners are from another ethic group.
Your statement shosw an abject ignorance of basic statistics..and simple logic..
So basically you're nitpicking and avoiding the argument completely. What a surprise.
I've not nit-picked, nor have I avoided your argument. I'll break down my reply to you.
Your first point appeared to argue that by being married to someone who is White English showed a significant level of integration, and being accepting of inter-racial marriage. I replied that you don't have to be in an inter-racial to be accepting of such marriages, or be successfully integrated. That it is more about attitudes than anything else. I then responded to your point on inter-relationships becoming the norm,that the main point is that these relationships are not seen as any different from intra-racial relationships, not that they are celebrated, seen as better, or seen as worse.
You then picked out two examples in your personal life. I found your descriptions of such fairly curious, and I don't see how they qualify as nitpicking. It is odd to describe someone who is Black, and British first and foremost as Black African. It is odd to describe someone as 'very' white.
Can't judge on individual basis, but low rates of marriage outside your ethnic group does suggest segregation.
Why? Most White people will marry white people, I don't think that most of them are racist because they don't have partners or spouses who are from an Ethnicity minority.
Actually, someone posted the statistics here once, they do not support your argument, at all. Intermarriage among "white British" is much higher than the proportion of the population. I'll see if I can dig them up.
I would be amazed if Jeremy Corbyn doesn't come out on top in today's PMQs. I think the conservatives are getting very sloppy. The Google tax was a classic own goal and totally unnecessary. The PM should rein in George Osborne and concentrate on governing well.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
It's lining up well for Osborne: he now looks like he's letting big business off tax, with further corporation tax cuts to come, whilst at the same time raiding middle class pensions with a tax rise.
Genius.
Dave's going to get a shellacking if Jezza leads and continues for all his questions on the bedroom tax appeal.
Might blow JJ's cover of having "normal" people questions answered. I somehow doubt that "normal" members of the public saw the judgment and compiled a well thought out letter / email containing a question for PMQ's, that was then processed at JJ HQ, the individual background checked etc etc etc all in the past 2 hrs.
well yes. I'm interested to see how he plays it. I wonder how many have put pen to paper about the differences between the Italian and UK tax regimes...
Optimism about Britain’s economy has plunged since the general election, it emerged today on the eve of the latest official figures for growth.
The national mood has changed completely since David Cameron won his second term on a wave of optimism, and has hit the lowest ebb since April 2013 when the country narrowly avoided a double-dip recession.
One economist today cautioned against the danger of Britons “talking ourselves into a downturn”, as GDP figures for the final three months of last year to be released tomorrow are expected to confirm growth was more modest in 2015 than in 2014.
Pollsters Ipsos MORI found the proportion of people who believe things will get worse in the year ahead has surged from just 17 per cent during the election campaign in April 2015 to 39 per cent now.
Mr. Eagles, Hannibal would've slapped Caesar about with effortless ease.
One suspects that McDonnell will do as much good as Caesar's attack on Dyrrachium.
Nonsense. Dyrrachium was a great success, outnumbered, Caesar's side inflicted twice the number causalities on his opponents, and his opponents were so badly wounded they had a can of whoop ass opened on them a few weeks later at Pharsalus
It's only just over a year since Osborne was being widely criticised for being too draconian on new measures to collect tax from companies like Google, so it's hardly a surprise that Cameron can easily bat off the question.
You have completely avoided it and are still nitpicking. Why you can't accept that a woman from a Pakistani background marrying a white English person is rare and actually quite brave is quite telling. It doesn't fit your narrative.
I think that inter-racial marriage is something that should be celebrated, at least for now. In a few years maybe as a country we will look back at it all and wonder why there was so much controversy over it, but we aren't at that stage. There is still a lot of resistance in certain communities who refuse to integrate into British society, and inter-marriage is just a symptom of that failure.
What narrative, exactly? I presume you think my 'nitpiciking' is my reference to your descriptions, but I'm not surprised that you haven't addressed those observations.
I haven't said anything about whether a woman from a Pakistani background marrying a white English person is rare or brave or not. When I replied to Casino_Royale's original point, I thought it was referring to simply anyone who was English, not specifically White English.
On inter-racial marriage, I simply feel they should be treated no differently to any other union. Inter-racial marriage, is no more special than any other relationship. Even reading inter-racial marriage statistics as a measure of integration isn't cut and dried, either. From talking to friends who also have a BME background, their parents are 'okay' with them marrying only 'certain' races outside of their ethnic group (and in many cases, it's only really one race outside of their ethnic group).
Cameron smashing Jezza on tax. Frankly, who really cares about Google taxes?
Not watching PMQs, but didn't the govt get £130m EXTRA in tax out of Google?
Something not mentioned so far in the EU debate has been how international companies shop for jurisdictions when it comes to HQ for tax reasons, which has done very well for Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. A non-EU UK could insist that tax is paid on all UK commerce.
So basically you're nitpicking and avoiding the argument completely. What a surprise.
I've not nit-picked, nor have I avoided your argument. I'll break down my reply to you.
Your first point appeared to argue that by being married to someone who is White English showed a significant level of integration, and being accepting of inter-racial marriage. I replied that you don't have to be in an inter-racial to be accepting of such marriages, or be successfully integrated. That it is more about attitudes than anything else. I then responded to your point on inter-relationships becoming the norm,that the main point is that these relationships are not seen as any different from intra-racial relationships, not that they are celebrated, seen as better, or seen as worse.
You then picked out two examples in your personal life. I found your descriptions of such fairly curious, and I don't see how they qualify as nitpicking. It is odd to describe someone who is Black, and British first and foremost as Black African. It is odd to describe someone as 'very' white.
Can't judge on individual basis, but low rates of marriage outside your ethnic group does suggest segregation.
Why? Most White people will marry white people, I don't think that most of them are racist because they don't have partners or spouses who are from an Ethnicity minority.
Actually, someone posted the statistics here once, they do not support your argument, at all. Intermarriage among "white British" is much higher than the proportion of the population. I'll see if I can dig them up.
If you re-read my post again, I said most White British people. I'd be intrigued if you could find statistics that found that most White British people in the country have partners or spouses from a BME background. Given that they outnumber BMEs quite significantly, I don't think that's actually possible.
One of the worst things is the way that some feminists in Sweden have been implying that Swedish men are just as likely to be rapists or sexual molesters as the migrants.
Labour can't go on tax, they have such a poor record on tax avoidance and not prosecuting tax evasion that any attempt by them to hurt the government is going to fail. One thing this government have been good at is closing loopholes and fixing the tax net so it is much more difficult for companies to avoid tax. The diverted profits tax is interesting, but it will only work if it is levied with absolute ruthlessness.
Comments
Their ability to sustain results has been a surprise and they have also set about bolstering their squad.
Most of the usual title challengers seem gripped by collective paralysis and indecision. Managers set to depart and sets of under-performing, possibly disillusioned, players.
"I tend to agree that the formation of the Coalition was the defining moment of Cameron's premiership (so far - the referendum has the chance to eclipse it). It was classic in its combination of pragmatism and ruthlessness."
And of course Lib Dem self sacrifice for the good of the country.
First, the news that RBS still haven't got their house in order, and now troughing MPs gorging themselves on our money.
Adding the constituency and regional votes together Labour got almost exactly twice the Tory vote in 2011.
The trend for Labour is terrible. In the constituency vote they have got:
1999 38.8%
2003 34.6%
2007 32.1%
2011 31.7%
In contrast the Tory vote was almost entirely flat until 2011 when they were squeezed by the huge increase in the SNP vote. In 2011 they got 13.9%, their worst performance to date.
So the scale of the challenge for the Tories is huge. At the moment Labour have 37 seats and the Tories have 15. I can see some potential gains at constituency level from a Labour party in very poor shape, Eastwood being a real possibility and Dumfriesshire being a bit more optimistic, but the problem the Tories have is that such gains may well cost them a regional seat in exchange.
I think that Labour will indeed fall, probably to the mid 20s, and that the Tories will rise, possibly to the high teens, but cross over needs a total Labour meltdown. Not impossible but not at all likely.
Yes, there was - as you rightly say - the opening there but he had to make it happen. The Conservatives planned ahead in case that scenario was the result and made the most of it; Labour didn't and winged it as they went along. True, Labour weren't in as good a position but until the Friday they weren't aware that there might even a game to be played; they'd have been just as unprepared had the numbers stacked up.
So yes, I am looking with the benefit of hindsight (aren't we all?), but Cameron wasn't - he prepared for it all beforehand and his 'big open offer' was done with foresight.
Jury wouldn't convict if there was a realistic probability of her being imprisonned
How disappointing, and yet totally unsurprising.
Sure western colonial history involved a lot of Taking (land, people, resources, etc - we weren't angels) but we then put the taken factors to work. We Made. We Made ourselves rich and powerful. Some cultures cannot Make because they cannot culturally put in place the necessary enablers of my first paragraph. That is the key difference. What will happen to the Middle East once they Taken all the oil out? Are they culturally capable of Making anything anyone wants?
This hard truth also explains the abject failure of socialism. It's a Take religion not a Make one.
Bloody hell! He is now saying the previously unsayable, and with knobs on. Has anyone else gone from poacher to gamekeeper in the PC world like Mr. Phillips?
1/3 on Labour looks pretty skinny to me but probably remains the value option.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/12123271/Voters-are-very-angry-extremists-are-one-crisis-away-from-power.html
Corbyn won't like being lumped in with Le Pen and Trump but he's right - it's all part of the same phenomenon.
As a lady of 'many moons,' I know things can turn on a sixpence in politics. Kelvin McKenzie made a good point on QT a couple of weeks ago, that some of JC's ideas may start to resonate in the future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35419458
"The Scottish Liberal Democrats have proposed increasing income tax rates by 1p"
Yes, you could argue that strictly speaking putting yourself first is 'selfish' but, if you don't, there might be nobody who's in any position to help others, and everyone could die.
The other surprising aspect was the Labour response and this has proved to be pivotal. I think the LDs hoped (not unreasonably) to be able to play off two competing offers but the numbers weren't really there for the deal with Labour but not was the will from the Labour side. That meant that by the Monday the options were either to walk away (with all the vitriol that would have been heaped on Clegg and the party) or deal with the Conservatives.
In the end, Labour made the Coalition happen because they wanted to go into Opposition after 13 years in Government. We will never know whether had a similar scenario occurred in 1992, John Major would have wanted to carry on.
Genius.
http://order-order.com/2016/01/27/snp-expenses-crusader-employs-his-own-wife/
Maomentum
Supporters gather as George Galloway mayoral bid gains momentum. https://t.co/UWolF3w5cC
House of Commons
Today we will be live tweeting PMQs which you can watch from midday on https://t.co/V0D9tBH5PA #PMQs
Your first point appeared to argue that by being married to someone who is White English showed a significant level of integration, and being accepting of inter-racial marriage. I replied that you don't have to be in an inter-racial to be accepting of such marriages, or be successfully integrated. That it is more about attitudes than anything else. I then responded to your point on inter-relationships becoming the norm,that the main point is that these relationships are not seen as any different from intra-racial relationships, not that they are celebrated, seen as better, or seen as worse.
You then picked out two examples in your personal life. I found your descriptions of such fairly curious, and I don't see how they qualify as nitpicking. It is odd to describe someone who is Black, and British first and foremost as Black African. It is odd to describe someone as 'very' white.
The system has failed hundreds of the most vulnerable young girls in Rotherham and thousands more elsewhere, people need to be held to account for this systemic failure in child protection.
Guns with no bullets?
Inner city sumo?
Monkey tennis?
Now you can argue that UKIP isn't extreme and it's not. Indeed, arguably it's less extreme than Corbyn's Labour is (though Corbyn's election is part of the same phenomenon). But they're certainly further from the centre than Con-Lab-LD-SNP and part of the centrifugal process we're seeing across Western democracies in general. There's no reason why they need be the limit.
"Almost possible to feel sorry for Blairites, standing on the edge of the abyss, helpless as we surged past them!"
But if the mainstream are replaced by extremes then that will be a tragedy, not for the politicians themselves who've brought on their own downfall, but for the people who'll have to put up with erratic, damaging and potentially downright dangerous government.
I think that inter-racial marriage is something that should be celebrated, at least for now. In a few years maybe as a country we will look back at it all and wonder why there was so much controversy over it, but we aren't at that stage. There is still a lot of resistance in certain communities who refuse to integrate into British society, and inter-marriage is just a symptom of that failure.
Quite frankly I can't pick holes in this https://t.co/1sN8GiYDrX
But whenever I'm on a commercial plane 90% of people don't pay attention to the briefing anyway, I often wonder how many of them I will have to pass on the way out in an emergency. :-(
The problem is that everyone notices this, and that he doesn't really care about them. So he has to rely on locking up the nomination with patronage, as he can't exactly use charm.
I've heard more than one Tory MP (admittedly not part of the inner circle) use the same four letter word to describe him (sometimes preceded by 'total') when asked for their opinion of him.
" low rates of marriage outside your ethnic group does suggest segregation."
or
low rates of marriage outside your ethnic group does suggest you may have little choice if your ethnic group is dominant so you have limited choices outside of it.
If you are white British, you are in a c 80% majority. So only 20% of possible partners are from another ethic group.
Your statement shosw an abject ignorance of basic statistics..and simple logic..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12122998/Cologne-sex-attacks-Safe-zone-for-women-planned-ahead-of-citys-carnival.html
The national mood has changed completely since David Cameron won his second term on a wave of optimism, and has hit the lowest ebb since April 2013 when the country narrowly avoided a double-dip recession.
One economist today cautioned against the danger of Britons “talking ourselves into a downturn”, as GDP figures for the final three months of last year to be released tomorrow are expected to confirm growth was more modest in 2015 than in 2014.
Pollsters Ipsos MORI found the proportion of people who believe things will get worse in the year ahead has surged from just 17 per cent during the election campaign in April 2015 to 39 per cent now.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/britons-sense-of-optimism-over-economy-plunges-to-lowest-level-for-almost-three-years-a3166156.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11284781/Google-Tax-targets-double-Irish-tax-avoidance.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/autumn-statement/11271868/Autumn-Statement-2014-George-Osborne-launches-8bn-tax-raid-on-big-business.html
I haven't said anything about whether a woman from a Pakistani background marrying a white English person is rare or brave or not. When I replied to Casino_Royale's original point, I thought it was referring to simply anyone who was English, not specifically White English.
On inter-racial marriage, I simply feel they should be treated no differently to any other union. Inter-racial marriage, is no more special than any other relationship. Even reading inter-racial marriage statistics as a measure of integration isn't cut and dried, either. From talking to friends who also have a BME background, their parents are 'okay' with them marrying only 'certain' races outside of their ethnic group (and in many cases, it's only really one race outside of their ethnic group).
Absolutely rogered Corbyn senseless.
Something not mentioned so far in the EU debate has been how international companies shop for jurisdictions when it comes to HQ for tax reasons, which has done very well for Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. A non-EU UK could insist that tax is paid on all UK commerce.
WHO THE F*CK CARES (or knows) ABOUT YEMEN??
Nusrat Ghani asking a question about defence
Does Lab really think that was even vaguely competent by Jezza?
NPXMPX2 where are you?
That said Cameron over-reached on migrants, Corbyn was talking about children.