Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative? how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with? Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages? why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believ
How and why did Ken come out with the Hitler stuff again? What was he asked that required the reply "I am right about Hitler and the Jews"?
If we must cast around for a rational explanation, how about this: He is unofficially trying to perform an act of self-sacrifice by subliminally spinning the results for Labour at the further expense of his already tattered reputation. That is, reminding us indirectly that he was instrumental in creating a media firestorm over the past week, and that without his "help" Labour would clearly have been picking up further seats on its 2012 base in England, rather than losing a (mere) net 7 currently, so results have to be interpreted in that context.
Didn't convince me either.
Irrational explanations based around self-absorbed unrepentant egotism and an addiction to media exposure abound.
I was re-elected to my council seat last night and almost doubled my majority. Very relieved as the Tories were working so hard and the ward was lost badly last year. Tories were targeting 6 gains (3 from Lab, 3 from LD and lost every one.
Seems like green shoots for Lib Dems but still desert areas where local party has disappeared, but this is the first election night in a long time that hasn't been crushing,so I guess that's progress.
Hope other Peebies who've been up for election have done well.
Unfortunately John O doesn't know how John O is doing as our count isn't taking place until tomorrow!!
Hope this is not a portend of my eventual fate, but the long-serving leader (and friend) of another Surrey Borough was defeated 2-1 by a Resiodents' Association candidate. Turned a shade of grey on hearing that.
After boundary changes, my ward is highly marginal and so well, who knows......Anyway I have had a good innings.
PS Many congrats to tkpfar on a splendid result.
Fingers crossed.
And toes as well please. But many thanks. It's particularly confusing this year as the boundary changes mean an all-out election so everyone has three votes rather than the usual one.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative? how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with? Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages? why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??
What are British values anyway?
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative? how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with? Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages? why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
It's probably best we don't bring Orthodox Jewish practices of segregation into this discussion I guess - though if Ken Livingstone is available for a guest thread on the subject we could probably break Vanilla inside ten minutes.
Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
#rattled
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 election
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.
What do you define as "win"? The Tories are still favourites to be biggest party, but the swing from 2011 points to a hung parliament with the Tories having to rely on the Lib Dems or Northern Ireland parties to survive.
Of course we could also go back to the 1959 Parliament , and point out that despite having already been in power for 9/10 years the Tories managed to make significant gains from Labour at the local elections of 1960 and 1961. Despite that , Labour did win the 1964 election!
Would you like some more straws to clutch?
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.
The fact that you are having to go back over 50 years to try to find something onto which to pin your hopes shows who is ignorant.
It is very clear that Corbyn is the first opposition leader not to make electoral progress at a local level in modern political history.
The world was very different back in the late 50s/early 60s. You know that - but are choosing to ignore it.
I was re-elected to my council seat last night and almost doubled my majority. Very relieved as the Tories were working so hard and the ward was lost badly last year. Tories were targeting 6 gains (3 from Lab, 3 from LD and lost every one.
Seems like green shoots for Lib Dems but still desert areas where local party has disappeared, but this is the first election night in a long time that hasn't been crushing,so I guess that's progress.
Hope other Peebies who've been up for election have done well.
Unfortunately John O doesn't know how John O is doing as our count isn't taking place until tomorrow!!
Hope this is not a portend of my eventual fate, but the long-serving leader (and friend) of another Surrey Borough was defeated 2-1 by a Resiodents' Association candidate. Turned a shade of grey on hearing that.
After boundary changes, my ward is highly marginal and so well, who knows......Anyway I have had a good innings.
I was re-elected to my council seat last night and almost doubled my majority. Very relieved as the Tories were working so hard and the ward was lost badly last year. Tories were targeting 6 gains (3 from Lab, 3 from LD and lost every one.
Seems like green shoots for Lib Dems but still desert areas where local party has disappeared, but this is the first election night in a long time that hasn't been crushing,so I guess that's progress.
Hope other Peebies who've been up for election have done well.
Unfortunately John O doesn't know how John O is doing as our count isn't taking place until tomorrow!!
Hope this is not a portend of my eventual fate, but the long-serving leader (and friend) of another Surrey Borough was defeated 2-1 by a Resiodents' Association candidate. Turned a shade of grey on hearing that.
After boundary changes, my ward is highly marginal and so well, who knows......Anyway I have had a good innings.
PS Many congrats to tkpfar on a splendid result.
Good luck John. We had a County by-election up here in Staffs and managed to return a Tory with a more-than doubled majority of 9.6%.
I was re-elected to my council seat last night and almost doubled my majority. Very relieved as the Tories were working so hard and the ward was lost badly last year. Tories were targeting 6 gains (3 from Lab, 3 from LD and lost every one.
Seems like green shoots for Lib Dems but still desert areas where local party has disappeared, but this is the first election night in a long time that hasn't been crushing,so I guess that's progress.
Hope other Peebies who've been up for election have done well.
Unfortunately John O doesn't know how John O is doing as our count isn't taking place until tomorrow!!
Hope this is not a portend of my eventual fate, but the long-serving leader (and friend) of another Surrey Borough was defeated 2-1 by a Resiodents' Association candidate. Turned a shade of grey on hearing that.
After boundary changes, my ward is highly marginal and so well, who knows......Anyway I have had a good innings.
PS Many congrats to tkpfar on a splendid result.
Fingers crossed.
And toes as well please. But many thanks. It's particularly confusing this year as the boundary changes mean an all-out election so everyone has three votes rather than the usual one.
Delaying the Chilcott report to enable Blair to speak on the referendum, may backfire IMHO. The families of the dead and disabled could be a very emotive force the moment Blair steps forward.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative? how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with? Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages? why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??
What are British values anyway?
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.
Now I get it, your version of British values= gender segregation is fine if youre a white, upper class privilleged millionaire paying £30k plus per year for an education but not for Muslims. Then Islamic gender segregation is against "British values".
Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).
Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
#rattled
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 election
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.
What do you define as "win"? The Tories are still favourites to be biggest party, but the swing from 2011 points to a hung parliament with the Tories having to rely on the Lib Dems or Northern Ireland parties to survive.
Of course we could also go back to the 1959 Parliament , and point out that despite having already been in power for 9/10 years the Tories managed to make significant gains from Labour at the local elections of 1960 and 1961. Despite that , Labour did win the 1964 election!
Would you like some more straws to clutch?
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.
Are you really saying John Curtice and Michael Thrasher do not have a clue?
They're only on the TV because Justin wasn't available.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative? how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with? Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages? why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??
What are British values anyway?
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.
Now I get it, your version of British values= gender segregation is fine if youre a white, upper class privilleged millionaire paying £30k plus per year for an education but not for Muslims. Then Islamic gender segregation is against "British values".
okay got it.
The fact that you can't accept that the gender segregation within Muslim communities is of a completely different nature shows that you are just trolling
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative? how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with? Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages? why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes........
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??
What are British values anyway?
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.
Now I get it, your version of British values= gender segregation is fine if youre a white, upper class privilleged millionaire paying £30k plus per year for an education but not for Muslims. Then Islamic gender segregation is against "British values".
okay got it.
The fact that you can't accept that the gender segregation within Muslim communities is of a completely different nature shows that you are just trolling
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).
Best of luck Mr O
Under your masterful stewardship, Elmbridge comfortably eat Buckinghamshire for most tax paid per head of any place anywhere in the world, yet again.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative? how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with? Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages? why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??
What are British values anyway?
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.
Now I get it, your version of British values= gender segregation is fine if youre a white, upper class privilleged millionaire paying £30k plus per year for an education but not for Muslims. Then Islamic gender segregation is against "British values".
okay got it.
Speaking of school... do your mum and dad know you are bunking off today?
Q: Are the good results for the Scottish Conservatives and the ok results for Scottish LDs due to their efforts or is it more a result of the fall of SLAB?
All three parties are in competition for the unionist or non-SNP vote. It's a "What if?" but I suspect Labour would be in a better position if Jim Murphy had had the time to make his mark. Ruth Davidson is one of the sharpest political operators anywhere in the UK. Maybe better even than Nicola Sturgeon.
Q: Are the good results for the Scottish Conservatives and the ok results for Scottish LDs due to their efforts or is it more a result of the fall of SLAB?
All three parties are in competition for the unionist or non-SNP vote. It's a "What if?" but I suspect Labour would be in a better position if Jim Murphy had had the time to make his mark. Ruth Davidson is one of the sharpest political operators anywhere in the UK. Maybe better even than Nicola Sturgeon.
Nicola Sturgeon rode to power on the coat tails of Alex Salmond. What are her actual achievements - Salmond managed to win a parliamentary majority in 2011 which Sturgeon has promptly lost.
Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).
Q: Are the good results for the Scottish Conservatives and the ok results for Scottish LDs due to their efforts or is it more a result of the fall of SLAB?
Aren't all wins ultimately down to the fall of their rivals?
Slab just seem to have managed a catastrophic failure and then decided what the voters wanted was more left wing policies and an ambiguous position on independence. Oh and a novice as Leader.
Surely the real point of any comparison with prior results is that right now the Tory party is tearing itself into at least 2 pieces, that a significant portion of the party are calling the duo who only last year won them a surprising majority names completely inappropriate for a family blog like this and if anybody is minding the shop rather than playing referendum games they are doing a damn good job of hiding it.
Ruth is a goddess. That is all we know and all we need to know.
It's a long way off but how might the tories' Scottish boost translate into Westminster seats Mr L - an extra one or two?
Good chance of 3 more I would say. 2 more in the borders, one each side of Mundell and the Eastwood equivalent where the Labour vote will get squeezed even tighter now it is clear who the Unionist is. Edinburgh and Aberdeenshire look a lot trickier.
But Eastwood was close to being a three-way split and is the SNP seat most vulnerable to Labour based on 2015 results. Apparently there is also a strong Jewish community there which might have reacted to Livingstone's ramblings.Ceteris paribus Labour tends to do a bit better at Westminster elections than Holyrood. Having managed 22.5% in the constituency vote yesterday surely makes it likely that had it been a Westminster election Labour would have reached 25%.
Jim Murphy did comparatively well in that seat because he got a lot of tactical Tory support. Last night showed what happened when that stopped.
So much of Scottish politics at the moment is about identifying who the opposition to the SNP is. Once that becomes clear we see strong tactical voting to the challenger's advantage. With the right candidate the Labour vote in that seat will be very soft. The problem for Scotland is the huge swathe of seats where Labour was previously dominant, is now collapsing and there is no alternative. These seats look very safe indeed.
I understand your point , but tactical voting - probably less likely anyway for a Westminster election - is not probable when all three main candidates have in excess of 30% of the vote.When the UK government is at stake I would frankly find it difficult to imagine Labour voters voting Tory and run the risk of helping to keep a Tory PM in office.Realistically, I would have thought that Labour could aim for 25 - to 30% in Scotland in 2020. If so, seats such as Eastwood would certainly come back into play. Strangely enough yesterday's Tory success may have done Labour a favour further down the road.Much - if not all - of the higher Tory vote could be Tory tactical voters who had voted SNP in recent years returning home in the face of the real threat of Independence.Now that the bubble of SNP invincibility has been burst quite effectively, it will not be too surprising if former Labour voters follow the return path too as the SNP administration increasingly has to stand on its record.
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
I think it would mostly remind me of my days in the (clearly very un-British) evangelical portion of the Church of England.
Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).
Best of luck Mr O
Under your masterful stewardship, Elmbridge comfortably eat Buckinghamshire for most tax paid per head of any place anywhere in the world, yet again.
Amateurs.
Doffs cap respectfully to A Local Resident!
Purely anecdotally and could easily be mistaken, it appears that turnout has been at the lower end of the 'normal' 33-36% (next door Runnymede saw an appreciable decline). Other things being equal (er, ahem), that is probably not helpful to us blue lovelies. We shall see.
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
let me try to make it clear:
Are you a muslim woman? Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).
Best of luck Mr O
Under your masterful stewardship, Elmbridge comfortably eat Buckinghamshire for most tax paid per head of any place anywhere in the world, yet again.
Amateurs.
Doffs cap respectfully to A Local Resident!
Purely anecdotally and could easily be mistaken, it appears that turnout has been at the lower end of the 'normal' 33-36% (next door Runnymede saw an appreciable decline). Other things being equal (er, ahem), that is probably not helpful to us blue lovelies. We shall see.
Depends. Will Postal votes supply enough Conservatives?
Surely the real point of any comparison with prior results is that right now the Tory party is tearing itself into at least 2 pieces, that a significant portion of the party are calling the duo who only last year won them a surprising majority names completely inappropriate for a family blog like this and if anybody is minding the shop rather than playing referendum games they are doing a damn good job of hiding it. I mean, if not now, when?
"if anybody is minding the shop rather than playing referendum games they are doing a damn good job of hiding it." That I agree with. But why pick this timing? May be it was set out months in advance based on when key things such as POTUS visit was scheduled? If so, that back fired.
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
let me try to make it clear:
Are you a muslim woman? Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
That makes the assumption that in a patriarchal society women are practising their religion purely by choice, and in the way that they see fit.
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
let me try to make it clear:
Are you a muslim woman? Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
Judging by the girls in headscarves I see at Waterloo (full make up, heels etc), muslim women can;t wait to 'freemix (to use your disgusting phrase).
And that's what really worries you boys, isn;t it. You can't cut the mustard. Hence the need for Mosque 'rules'.
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
let me try to make it clear:
Are you a muslim woman? Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islam
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the culture of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
#rattled
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 election
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.
What do you define as "win"? The Tories are still favourites to be biggest party, but the swing from 2011 points to a hung parliament with the Tories having to rely on the Lib Dems or Northern Ireland parties to survive.
Of course we could also go back to the 1959 Parliament , and point out that despite having already been in power for 9/10 years the Tories managed to make significant gains from Labour at the local elections of 1960 and 1961. Despite that , Labour did win the 1964 election!
Would you like some more straws to clutch?
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.
Are you really saying John Curtice and Michael Thrasher do not have a clue?
No I am not - though I do not think the likes of Laura Kuensberg do - nor indeed most politicians. I am confident that, if given the opportunity of drawing Curtice & Thrasher's attention to these earlier examples , they would accept the point.These are historical electoral facts - I am not making them up! For whatever reason, they have decided on a starting point of 1973/74 Reform of Local Government and for reasons best known to themselves have chosen to ignore earlier data. In no way does that make it invalid to refer to the earlier results. I may try to send them an email on this - because it is seriously misleading.If political anoraks on here are swallowing that line what hope is there for the public at large?
how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with?
At one point in history, Europeans and Christians used to tell Africans and others that God had made the white man "superior" to other races - look up William Tappan Thompson for an example.
The interpretation of Christianity needed to change and it did. Perhaps Islam needs to do the same and adapt to a more modern world. Religion should never be used for the subjugation of others, but sadly it frequently has been.
Because there is plenty of evidence that a significant number are kept isolated, uneducated and controlled. There are plenty of muslim women turning up dead or beaten or removed abroad and forced into unwanted marriages.
... they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
No.
Why should any women accept that her lot in life is to be a third-rate punch bag, to be beaten, raped, traded or killed for nothing more than wanting her own freedom?
Your characterisation of Christianity (in what I assume to mean the 19th century?) is unfair. The theory of the 'Sons of Ham', was imo simply an attempt by some in a Christian country to square beliefs about the inferiority of black people with the prevalent faith. Racism and ethnocentrism rose to pre-eminence in the 19th century in spite of Christianity not because of it - in fact they owe a great deal more to Darwinism and other contemporary popular science. The anti-slavery movement was a nonconformist Christian movement - 'Am I not a man and a brother?'. The racist trend characterised by Thomas Carlyle was often profoundly anti-religious - it was counter-religious.
An exception is Barnet and Camden, where Goldsmith is clearly ahead but Dismore looks like holding the Assembly seat for Labour. Dismore is one of the most popular Labour people among Jewish voters, not especially for a high profile on Israel but just because of hard work in his patch for ages. Havering and redbridge is an exception the other way, with Goldsmith ahead but the Assembly seat looking a total toss-up. Dixie looks to have been mistaken about Merton, which is leaning Labour. In my Northeast sector, the Tories have only just squeaked into 2nd place ahead of the Greens, with Labour ahead by nearly a 4-1 margin.
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
let me try to make it clear:
Are you a muslim woman? Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islam
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the cultural of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
Well Islam has been practised since the 7th century and is part of modern Britain. Its not going anywhere and is not only here to stay but is growing due to demographics, converts and immigration.
As Trevor Philips say, Islam will not change and Muslims will not integrate how other minorities have done in the past. So it really doesn't matter what non muslims think or say, as long as Muslims are not breaking the law, live and let live.
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
let me try to make it clear:
Are you a muslim woman? Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islam
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the cultural of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
Well Islam has been practised since the 7th century and is part of modern Britain. Its not going anywhere and is not only here to stay to but is growing due to demographics, converts and immigration.
As Trevor Philips say, Islam will not change and Muslims will not integrate how other minorities have done in the past. So it really doesn't matter what non muslims think or say, as long as Muslims are not breaking the law, live and let live.
I'm sure thats what the Catholics thought before reformation when they were burning witches and holding inquisitions.
Quite an achievement from Davidson that she should personally feel justly proud. Let’s not forget that only last year in the general election her party recorded its worst share of the vote since records began.
And so that reversal of fortunes, which she has undoubtedly presided over, can be squarely pinned on a successful campaign that at times may have seemed to hang on the flimsy principle of the more ridiculous the photo opp the better, but actually had so much more to it.
It had Davidson and she is clearly a vote winner. And what Davidson had was a simple, clear and consistent message – the Tories would be the opposition to the SNP and that she would protect the Union. That claim never wavered and who wouldn’t believe a woman who can ride a buffalo and drive a tank?
Your characterisation of Christianity (in what I assume to mean the 19th century?) is unfair.
I was not implying that ALL christians thought that way, but SOME definitely used those arguments. It is a sad fact that the messages of hope and tolerance that are contained in many religions are often subverted to their polar opposites by unusually vocal sections of the congregrations.
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
let me try to make it clear:
Are you a muslim woman? Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islam
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the cultural of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
Well Islam has been practised since the 7th century and is part of modern Britain. Its not going anywhere and is not only here to stay but is growing due to demographics, converts and immigration.
As Trevor Philips say, Islam will not change and Muslims will not integrate how other minorities have done in the past. So it really doesn't matter what non muslims think or say, as long as Muslims are not breaking the law, live and let live.
But Muslims are breaking the law - and their crimes are not being investigated/prosecuted because of 'cultural norms'
And yes, this does extend to honour killings and related violence.
We need to be honest about this - and find ways so that our criminal justice system takes no notice of faith and just brings perpetrators to trial.
No I am not - though I do not think the likes of Laura Kuensberg do - nor indeed most politicians. I am confident that, if given the opportunity of drawing Curtice & Thrasher's attention to these earlier examples , they would accept the point.These are historical electoral facts - I am not making them up! For whatever reason, they have decided on a starting point of 1973/74 Reform of Local Government and for reasons best known to themselves have chosen to ignore earlier data. In no way does that make it invalid to refer to the earlier results.
I may try to send them an email on this - because it is seriously misleading.If political anoraks on here are swallowing that line what hope is there for the public at large?.
I've told you before why they use post 1973/74 onwards.
Prior to that there were many more council seats up for election, and you can't extrapolate accurate NESV prior to 73/74.
Post 1973/74 Council seat losses/gains combined with NESV gives much more accurate barometer for future general election predictions.
But Rallings, Thrasher, and Curtice have only been studying this for decades, what do they know?
Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
#rattled
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 election
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.
blockquote>
Would you like some more straws to clutch?
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.
The fact that you are having to go back over 50 years to try to find something onto which to pin your hopes shows who is ignorant.
It is very clear that Corbyn is the first opposition leader not to make electoral progress at a local level in modern political history.
The world was very different back in the late 50s/early 60s. You know that - but are choosing to ignore it.
Certainly the world was different , but there is no particular reason to believe that local election results a year into a Parliament were any less likely to be leading indicators of the following General Election than they are today.To be honest, I do not believe these results tell much at all - one way or the other. That was also true in 2011 - and indeed in 1960/61. I am simply taking the logic of comments made here and applying the same logic to earlier sets of local election results. - but the idea that these results pretty well set in stone the result of a General Election 4 years away is bonkers -as was true of those earlier years.
Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
#rattled
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 election
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.
What do you define as "win"? The Tories are still favourites to be biggest party, but the swing from 2011 points to a hung parliament with the Tories having to rely on the Lib Dems or Northern Ireland parties to survive.
Of course we could also go back to the 1959 Parliament , and point out that despite having already been in power for 9/10 years the Tories managed to make significant gains from Labour at the local elections of 1960 and 1961. Despite that , Labour did win the 1964 election!
Would you like some more straws to clutch?
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.
Are you really saying John Curtice and Michael Thrasher do not have a clue?
They're only on the TV because Justin wasn't available.
I have acted as a psephologist for BBC Local Radio stations for both General and Local Elections.
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Oh I see... because I am a white, non-muslim woman I should just shut the f*** up because having my muslim friend sit in tears describing the utter s**t she and her sister have to put up with is none of my business?
Basically, I should look the other way and pay no attention? Walk on by....
Your views would do credit to some of the biggest slimebags in human history, but they have no place in the modern world.
Scotland's a far more enlightened country than England; progressive, tolerant, it has no truck with the Tor - ......sorry, what's that you say? 34 seats and the main opposition at Holyrood?
Maybe Scots will come down off their high horses now.
Well done Ruth, quite a feat. I was struck by how filled Twitter was last night with young and trendy Twitter types airing their support for Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives. Most unusual.
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islam
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the cultural of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
Well Islam has been practised since the 7th century and is part of modern Britain. Its not going anywhere and is not only here to stay but is growing due to demographics, converts and immigration.
As Trevor Philips say, Islam will not change and Muslims will not integrate how other minorities have done in the past. So it really doesn't matter what non muslims think or say, as long as Muslims are not breaking the law, live and let live.
But Muslims are breaking the law - and their crimes are not being investigated/prosecuted because of 'cultural norms'
And yes, this does extend to honour killings and related violence.
We need to be honest about this - and find ways so that our criminal justice system takes no notice of faith and just brings perpetrators to trial.
What evidence do you have that Muslims are breaking the law and not being investigated or prosecuted because of cultural norms?
Im talking about now in 2016. Rotherham and other sex abuse scandals are a failure of police and social services in the past. But men of all races and religions have committed sex abuse scandals that have been covered up or not investigated...Jimmy Saville, catholic priests, politicians, care workers?
My posts today have been in relation to someone originally saying that guidelines issued by a mosque are "appallingly subjugating muslim women" which is just wrong.
Welsh Labour could be in for a massive beat down next time out, they have hung on by the skin of their teeth in loads of constituencies. If the referendum hadn't split the Tories and UKIP didn't have their heads up their own arses it would have been very bad for Labour in Wales. Next time out itay be devastating for them like it has been on Scotland.
Scotland's a far more enlightened country than England; progressive, tolerant, it has no truck with the Tor - ......sorry, what's that you say? 34 seats and the main opposition at Holyrood?
Maybe Scots will come down off their high horses now.
Well done Ruth, quite a feat. I was struck by how filled Twitter was last night with young and trendy Twitter types airing their support for Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives. Most unusual.
The Tories are antithesis of enlightenment, progress and tolerance? Ok, if you say so.
Life is obviously far too complicated for Alastair Meeks.
Salmond ran the Scottish Parliament and rings round the opposition with but 47 seats. Sturgeon will manage the same with 63. Also the Greens have just stated that they will support a peoples demand for a referendum - exactly the same language as Sturgeon. Finally 47 per cent in a multi-party election is strong stuff from the Nats.
Provisionally it looks to me as though Labour will gain Merton but just miss out on Redbridge, though either could still flip. Croydon and Sutton fairly close but a Tory hold. The d'Hondt London-wide seats are anyone's guess, but my guess is that Labour will pick up 1, for a total of 14/25. The 2012 result was already the best for Labour since the Assembly was set up, but having a majority would be a nice backup for Khan.
I would question the Nick Palmer line that Labour is holding up surprisingly well in the South. In the Havant Borough two seats have switched from Labour to UKIP and in Portsmouth (which is still being counted last I checked) Labour was admitting that it was losing a lot of votes to UKIP.
But the Lib Dems held their grip on seats in the south - aside from a Labour gain in Charles Dickens which went down to the wire. And Labour kept hold of their Paulsgrove seat, despite early talk of Ukip bagging a victory in the ward.
It ended up being a poor night for Ukip in the end, as the party failed to make any gains and remain with four councillors.
Life is obviously far too complicated for Alastair Meeks.
Salmond ran the Scottish Parliament and rings round the opposition with but 47 seats. Sturgeon will manage the same with 63. Also the Greens have just stated that they will support a peoples demand for a referendum - exactly the same language as Sturgeon. Finally 47 per cent in a multi-party election is strong stuff from the Nats.
"THE ODDS of an independent Scotland have taken a nosedive after the SNP lost their majority at Holyrood in the election, according to bookmaker Ladbrokes."
"Matthew Shaddick of Ladbrokes said: “A pretty bad night for Labour in Scotland, but also a costly one for those backing an SNP majority and the chances of an independent Scotland any time soon.”
The odds of a another independence referendum before 2020 are now 5/1, with 10/1 odds of Scots voting Yes in such a scenario."
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Oh I see... because I am a white, non-muslim woman I should just shut the f*** up because having my muslim friend sit in tears describing the utter s**t she and her sister have to put up with is none of my business?
Basically, I should look the other way and pay no attention? Walk on by....
Your views would do credit to some of the biggest slimebags in human history, but they have no place in the modern world.
WOW!!
Calm down, you are a bit ott!
No-one has told you to shut the f up. Ive been to the point and challenged what you say in a polite way. If your muslim friends have experienced what you say then that is terrible but women of all colours, creeds experience oppression and abuse.
It seems to me you have an issue with Muslim men and there are some bad ones in society but there are bad men and women of all faiths and none. I am a white convert married to an Algerian man, who is wonderful and he gives me my rights and fulfills his responsibilities in Islam towards me and i do the same in return.
Dont get bitter and hateful, it wont be of any help to your friends. All the best.
Curtice predicting a 57-43 win for Khan, based on more than half the votes counted. Berry third. Galloway behind Women's Equality.
Humiliating.
It's just par for the course with London.
Boris has been an exception.
Indeed. Boris had a big personal vote, was well-known before running for mayor and transcended the Tory party. It's the only way a Tory gets elected mayor in Labour London.
Most people don't know who Zac Goldsmith is, if they do it is that he's a privileged rich boy (without any of Boris's personality) and/or that his campaign has been negative and potentially bringing race into it (according to media stories). End result: Labour win with ease in a Labour city.
No I am not - though I do not think the likes of Laura Kuensberg do - nor indeed most politicians. I am confident that, if given the opportunity of drawing Curtice & Thrasher's attention to these earlier examples , they would accept the point.These are historical electoral facts - I am not making them up! For whatever reason, they have decided on a starting point of 1973/74 Reform of Local Government and for reasons best known to themselves have chosen to ignore earlier data. In no way does that make it invalid to refer to the earlier results.
I may try to send them an email on this - because it is seriously misleading.If political anoraks on here are swallowing that line what hope is there for the public at large?.
I've told you before why they use post 1973/74 onwards.
Prior to that there were many more council seats up for election, and you can't extrapolate accurate NESV prior to 73/74.
Post 1973/74 Council seat losses/gains combined with NESV gives much more accurate barometer for future general election predictions.
But Rallings, Thrasher, and Curtice have only been studying this for decades, what do they know?
I am sure the NESV could still be done for those earlier years but a significantly different model to arrive at the result would be needed. Because the results now go some way back they have little inclination to invest the necessary time and resources. Nevertheless it would not be that difficult for them to check that in 1960 and 1961 the Labour Opposition party lost several hundred seats to Macmillan's Tory Govt. We don't need NESV to establish that! Similarly Labour made big gains at the 1952 locals but still failed to win the 1955 election. At the May 1970 locals Labour gained circa 500 seats from the Tories but still lost the General Election five weeks later.
Welsh Labour could be in for a massive beat down next time out, they have hung on by the skin of their teeth in loads of constituencies. If the referendum hadn't split the Tories and UKIP didn't have their heads up their own arses it would have been very bad for Labour in Wales. Next time out itay be devastating for them like it has been on Scotland.
What happens on 23rd June will throw everything up in the air. I'm not sure we can crystal ball any of this.
Comments
Didn't convince me either.
Irrational explanations based around self-absorbed unrepentant egotism and an addiction to media exposure abound.
Con 39,441
UKIP 28,583
Labour 25,475
Lincs Independents 18,497
It is very clear that Corbyn is the first opposition leader not to make electoral progress at a local level in modern political history.
The world was very different back in the late 50s/early 60s. You know that - but are choosing to ignore it.
The families of the dead and disabled could be a very emotive force the moment Blair steps forward.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/667643/David-Cameron-Iraq-probe-Brexit-embarrassing-European-Union-EU-Tony-Blair
Now I get it, your version of British values= gender segregation is fine if youre a white, upper class privilleged millionaire paying £30k plus per year for an education but not for Muslims. Then Islamic gender segregation is against "British values".
okay got it.
First 2 declarations in Rotherham are split wards
2 UKIP 1 Lab in one
2 Lab 1 UKIP in the second
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
Under your masterful stewardship, Elmbridge comfortably eat Buckinghamshire for most tax paid per head of any place anywhere in the world, yet again.
Amateurs.
3 Lab (council leader re-elected)
What a tool. I hope we aren't paying for his legal representation.
Boris has been an exception.
I mean, if not now, when?
The interesting stuff is the Assembly vote - can Labour make gains here?
Purely anecdotally and could easily be mistaken, it appears that turnout has been at the lower end of the 'normal' 33-36% (next door Runnymede saw an appreciable decline). Other things being equal (er, ahem), that is probably not helpful to us blue lovelies. We shall see.
Are you a muslim woman?
Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
In other news, another threat to the British way of life is taken down.
Hilarious.
That I agree with. But why pick this timing? May be it was set out months in advance based on when key things such as POTUS visit was scheduled? If so, that back fired.
And that's what really worries you boys, isn;t it. You can't cut the mustard. Hence the need for Mosque 'rules'.
LOL
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the culture of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
I may try to send them an email on this - because it is seriously misleading.If political anoraks on here are swallowing that line what hope is there for the public at large?
An exception is Barnet and Camden, where Goldsmith is clearly ahead but Dismore looks like holding the Assembly seat for Labour. Dismore is one of the most popular Labour people among Jewish voters, not especially for a high profile on Israel but just because of hard work in his patch for ages. Havering and redbridge is an exception the other way, with Goldsmith ahead but the Assembly seat looking a total toss-up. Dixie looks to have been mistaken about Merton, which is leaning Labour. In my Northeast sector, the Tories have only just squeaked into 2nd place ahead of the Greens, with Labour ahead by nearly a 4-1 margin.
As Trevor Philips say, Islam will not change and Muslims will not integrate how other minorities have done in the past. So it really doesn't matter what non muslims think or say, as long as Muslims are not breaking the law, live and let live.
And yes, this does extend to honour killings and related violence.
We need to be honest about this - and find ways so that our criminal justice system takes no notice of faith and just brings perpetrators to trial.
Prior to that there were many more council seats up for election, and you can't extrapolate accurate NESV prior to 73/74.
Post 1973/74 Council seat losses/gains combined with NESV gives much more accurate barometer for future general election predictions.
But Rallings, Thrasher, and Curtice have only been studying this for decades, what do they know?
Basically, I should look the other way and pay no attention? Walk on by....
Your views would do credit to some of the biggest slimebags in human history, but they have no place in the modern world.
Maybe Scots will come down off their high horses now.
Well done Ruth, quite a feat. I was struck by how filled Twitter was last night with young and trendy Twitter types airing their support for Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives. Most unusual.
Salmond ran the Scottish Parliament and rings round the opposition with but 47 seats. Sturgeon will manage the same with 63. Also the Greens have just stated that they will support a peoples demand for a referendum - exactly the same language as Sturgeon. Finally 47 per cent in a multi-party election is strong stuff from the Nats.
The Tories went into the elections confident of bolstering their numbers from 19 to 22, which would have been able majority of the 42 seats available on the majority.
But the Lib Dems held their grip on seats in the south - aside from a Labour gain in Charles Dickens which went down to the wire. And Labour kept hold of their Paulsgrove seat, despite early talk of Ukip bagging a victory in the ward.
It ended up being a poor night for Ukip in the end, as the party failed to make any gains and remain with four councillors.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChxlxcaXAAAhqx2.jpg:large
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0506/786542-vote-for-taoiseach/
"THE ODDS of an independent Scotland have taken a nosedive after the SNP lost their majority at Holyrood in the election, according to bookmaker Ladbrokes."
"Matthew Shaddick of Ladbrokes said: “A pretty bad night for Labour in Scotland, but also a costly one for those backing an SNP majority and the chances of an independent Scotland any time soon.”
The odds of a another independence referendum before 2020 are now 5/1, with 10/1 odds of Scots voting Yes in such a scenario."
Calm down, you are a bit ott!
No-one has told you to shut the f up. Ive been to the point and challenged what you say in a polite way. If your muslim friends have experienced what you say then that is terrible but women of all colours, creeds experience oppression and abuse.
It seems to me you have an issue with Muslim men and there are some bad ones in society but there are bad men and women of all faiths and none. I am a white convert married to an Algerian man, who is wonderful and he gives me my rights and fulfills his responsibilities in Islam towards me and i do the same in return.
Dont get bitter and hateful, it wont be of any help to your friends. All the best.
Most people don't know who Zac Goldsmith is, if they do it is that he's a privileged rich boy (without any of Boris's personality) and/or that his campaign has been negative and potentially bringing race into it (according to media stories). End result: Labour win with ease in a Labour city.