Boris, Fox and Davis WILL have an agreed Brexit strategy in place within the next few months.
Theresa WILL trigger A50 early next year.
British position sounds like it's NOT "that fussed" about staying in the Single Market.
We we don't want to seem too keen and give the game away, so are we bluffing? Or maybe double bluffing? Or triple bluffing?
There are several people on here who've made the sensible point that if we're not prepared to leave the SM, then why bother negotiating? It'd be Cameron again but with a deadline. We have to be prepared for WTO with some potential twiddly bits.
May is starting out with a position of no full SM membership, but would like to bargain for sector by sector membership in return for concessions elsewhere.
Question for the smart people here. Do you think Theresa May will substantially bring down immigration? I had assumed Brexit wouldn't make much difference to levels of immigration beyond a possible recession effect. Immigration levels are high principally because it suits governments for it to be high, rather because they were unwillingly forced into it by the EU, and because successful open globalised economies tend to have high immigration levels. However, reducing immigration seems to be Theresa May's main objective and that's largely guiding the Brexit strategies. The other point of course is that she completely failed to tackle the problem while Home Secretary.
Mr. 43, I don't know, and nor I suspect do you, what policies on immigration that TM wanted to introduce but which were denied by Cameron. So I shouldn't go by past performance if I were you.
Now the Lady is sitting in the big chair let us see how she gets on.
Previous failure could be a motivation. She seems determined not just to "control" immigration in a philosophical sense but substantially reduce it. But she is not the first to promise that and was in charge of the department that failed to deliver the previous promise to do so.
I fear you have missed the point I was trying to make. A minister might come up with a policy but unless the PM smiles upon it it will not get through cabinet and so we do not know if the failure to deliver on the Conservative Manifesto immigration commitments was actually down to TM or because Cameron (and Clegg, pre 2015) would not agree to the her proposals.
Question for the smart people here. Do you think Theresa May will substantially bring down immigration? I had assumed Brexit wouldn't make much difference to levels of immigration beyond a possible recession effect. Immigration levels are high principally because it suits governments for it to be high, rather because they were unwillingly forced into it by the EU, and because successful open globalised economies tend to have high immigration levels. However, reducing immigration seems to be Theresa May's main objective and that's largely guiding the Brexit strategies. The other point of course is that she completely failed to tackle the problem while Home Secretary.
I don't know if I qualify as smart. I don't actually care about the Tories stupid, self-inflicted migration target. I do care very much about a controlled system where we let in those we want or need and remove those we don't.
I wouldn't withhold my vote if May failed again. When I tot up the numbers in the various extant visa schemes, I struggle to see how she can get it under 175k, and that's assuming we have trend growth closer to the EZ for the next few years.
Alastair was monumentally wrong. He may have been doing his posts for click-bait, or maybe because he really was that blind-sided by reality.
This is a betting site. Anybody betting based on his "insights" would have lost money. Maybe just a short apology would have been appropriate?
As would someone matter, I don't seem to recall you advising us to bet on Leave. There's no dishonour in that; indeed, if you're a really, really good pundit, you'll be wrong exactly one in five times on a 1-4 odds-on bet.
So why this utterly bizarre bitterness?
WHAT UTTERLY BIZARRE BITTERNESS???? It's inside your head.....
Exactly. There is no bitterness. I just presume REMAINERS are so maddened by defeat they WANT bitterness.
Worry, yes. * Brexiteer. Not one. Not one. Daft.
The REMAINERS have lost all emotional insight.
Mind on Saturday was appalling, certainly there seem to be some, even if only a tiny minority of Leave voters, who think the Leave victory gives them the right to be racist and repulsive. That is the sourest aspect of the BREXIT vote
I'd wager the people responsible were not Leave voters
Nope, the alleged perpetrators were 15 or 16.
Just the thought that it might be Brexit-related is saddening. I feel very sorry for Mr Jozwik and his family; they must be devastated.
I did reflect a little on the likelihood. Given the UK murd
RIP to the poor
But old enough to leave school and well above the age of criminal responsibility
You wrote this earlier in the thread:
certainly there seem to be some, even if only a tiny minority of Leave voters, who think the Leave victory gives them the right to be racist and repulsive
There have been plenty of reports of racist behaviour against the Polish community in Harlow, many of the perpetrators were certainly over 18
But NOT in this case, were they?
They were certainly influenced by the same phenomona
But they were too young to be LEAVE voters as you previously suggested.
Have to say this sounds very encouraging - A world where dementia/Alzheimer's becomes a treatable and managable condition would bet one of the great medical breakthroughs this century;
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
"Hillary Clinton’s favorability among women has suddenly reversed itself.
Last month, women had a largely favorable view of the Democratic presidential candidate, with 54 percent viewing her positively and 43 percent viewing her negatively. But those numbers have flipped in the last few weeks, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Women now dislike Clinton, with 52 percent holding a negative view and 45 percent holding a positive view. This is the first time in year that more women have disliked Clinton than liked her."
Boris, Fox and Davis WILL have an agreed Brexit strategy in place within the next few months.
Theresa WILL trigger A50 early next year.
British position sounds like it's NOT "that fussed" about staying in the Single Market.
We we don't want to seem too keen and give the game away, so are we bluffing? Or maybe double bluffing? Or triple bluffing?
Not really. The options are the EEA, a multilateral arrangement that resembles the EU with extra disadvantages or a minimalist bilateral FTA. We can reject the first because our real objection to the EU is that it is multilateral and we want a bilateral arrangement. A Swiss type bilateral deal requries too much time and a will from both sides that just isn't there. The Canadian FTA runs to 1000 pages, took ten years and still isn't ratified and isn't that great anyway.
So sort out the non-contentious elements like tariff-free trade in machinery and chemicals, sign a deal, dial the spin up to the max, and get out.
It's going to be mediocre, but that's where we are.
Question for the smart people here. Do you think Theresa May will substantially bring down immigration? I had assumed Brexit wouldn't make much difference to levels of immigration beyond a possible recession effect. Immigration levels are high principally because it suits governments for it to be high, rather because they were unwillingly forced into it by the EU, and because successful open globalised economies tend to have high immigration levels. However, reducing immigration seems to be Theresa May's main objective and that's largely guiding the Brexit strategies. The other point of course is that she completely failed to tackle the problem while Home Secretary.
...
When I tot up the numbers in the various extant visa schemes, I struggle to see how she can get it under 175k, and that's assuming we have trend growth closer to the EZ for the next few years.
Oh come on, Mr. M., use your imagination a bit. I am sure, if by some magic, you were suddenly dropped into the Home Office with responsibility for designing a policy for reducing immigration by, say, 75% you would come up with a workable policy inside a fortnight.
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
There never used to be burkas in Holloway when I lived round there in the 1990s, despite the large moslem population; ditto in Balsall Heath when I lived there in the 1980s. Women have made a conscious decision to do it. But I am not sure they have suddenly become more religious. I suspect - and fear - they are seeking to emphasise their separateness.
Question for the smart people here. Do you think Theresa May will substantially bring down immigration? I had assumed Brexit wouldn't make much difference to levels of immigration beyond a possible recession effect. Immigration levels are high principally because it suits governments for it to be high, rather because they were unwillingly forced into it by the EU, and because successful open globalised economies tend to have high immigration levels. However, reducing immigration seems to be Theresa May's main objective and that's largely guiding the Brexit strategies. The other point of course is that she completely failed to tackle the problem while Home Secretary.
No-one will notice. They'll see who is already here.
Question for the smart people here. Do you think Theresa May will substantially bring down immigration? I had assumed Brexit wouldn't make much difference to levels of immigration beyond a possible recession effect. Immigration levels are high principally because it suits governments for it to be high, rather because they were unwillingly forced into it by the EU, and because successful open globalised economies tend to have high immigration levels. However, reducing immigration seems to be Theresa May's main objective and that's largely guiding the Brexit strategies. The other point of course is that she completely failed to tackle the problem while Home Secretary.
...
When I tot up the numbers in the various extant visa schemes, I struggle to see how she can get it under 175k, and that's assuming we have trend growth closer to the EZ for the next few years.
Oh come on, Mr. M., use your imagination a bit. I am sure, if by some magic, you were suddenly dropped into the Home Office with responsibility for designing a policy for reducing immigration by, say, 75% you would come up with a workable policy inside a fortnight.
"Hillary Clinton’s favorability among women has suddenly reversed itself.
Last month, women had a largely favorable view of the Democratic presidential candidate, with 54 percent viewing her positively and 43 percent viewing her negatively. But those numbers have flipped in the last few weeks, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Women now dislike Clinton, with 52 percent holding a negative view and 45 percent holding a positive view. This is the first time in year that more women have disliked Clinton than liked her."
Alastair was monumentally wrong. He may have been doing his posts for click-bait, or maybe because he really was that blind-sided by reality.
This is a betting site. Anybody betting based on his "insights" would have lost money. Maybe just a short apology would have been appropriate?
As would someone matter, I don't seem to recall you advising us to bet on Leave. There's no dishonour in that; indeed, if y
WHAT UTTERLY BIZARRE BITTERNESS???? It's inside your head.....
Exactly. There is no bitterness. I just presume REMAINERS are so maddened by defeat they WANT bitterness.
Worry, yes. * Brexiteer. Not one. Not one. Daft.
The REMAINERS have lost all emotional insight.
Mind on Saturday was appalling, certainly there seem to be some, even if only a tiny minority of Leave voters, who think the Leave victory gives them the right to be racist and repulsive. That is the sourest aspect of the BREXIT vote
I'd wager the people responsible were not Leave voters
Nope, the alleged perpetrators were 15 or 16.
Just the thought that it might be B
RIP to the poor
But old enough to leave school and well above the age of criminal responsibility
You wrote this earlier in the thread:
certainly there seem to be some, even if only a tiny minority of Leave voters, who think the Leave victory gives them the right to be racist and repulsive
There have been plenty of reports of ra
But NOT in this case, were they?
They were certainly influenced by the same phenomona
But they were too young to be LEAVE voters as you previously suggested.
I said 'there seem to be some, even if only a tiny minority of Leave voters, who think the Leave victory gives them the right to be racist and repulsive' which is of course entirely true, as the Newsnight report tonight of racist incidents against the Polish community in Harlow will attest to
"Hillary Clinton’s favorability among women has suddenly reversed itself.
Last month, women had a largely favorable view of the Democratic presidential candidate, with 54 percent viewing her positively and 43 percent viewing her negatively. But those numbers have flipped in the last few weeks, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Women now dislike Clinton, with 52 percent holding a negative view and 45 percent holding a positive view. This is the first time in year that more women have disliked Clinton than liked her."
Boris, Fox and Davis WILL have an agreed Brexit strategy in place within the next few months.
Theresa WILL trigger A50 early next year.
British position sounds like it's NOT "that fussed" about staying in the Single Market.
We we don't want to seem too keen and give the game away, so are we bluffing? Or maybe double bluffing? Or triple bluffing?
Not really. The options are the EEA, a multilateral arrangement that resembles the EU with extra disadvantages or a minimalist bilateral FTA. We can reject the first because our real objection to the EU is that it is multilateral and we want a bilateral arrangement. A Swiss type bilateral deal requries too much time and a will from both sides that just isn't there. The Canadian FTA runs to 1000 pages, took ten years and still isn't ratified and isn't that great anyway.
So sort out the non-contentious elements like tariff-free trade in machinery and chemicals, sign a deal, dial the spin up to the max, and get out.
It's going to be mediocre, but that's where we are.
Given the Swiss have just voted against free movement they will be watching what we get with interest
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
There never used to be burkas in Holloway when I lived round there in the 1990s, despite the large moslem population; ditto in Balsall Heath when I lived there in the 1980s. Women have made a conscious decision to do it. But I am not sure they have suddenly become more religious. I suspect - and fear - they are seeking to emphasise their separateness.
Do you really think it is the women that have made the decision?
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
Surprising/disproportionate number of the burka wearers are actually converts, from white or black rather than Asian/Middle Eastern backgrounds. In such cases "overbearing parent suppressing daughter into wearing burka" doesn't really come into it.
Clearly there is a "free choice" issue - a lot of Muslim women I know feel under more pressure to wear the hijab than they feel comfortable with, more usually because they "don't want community elders gossiping about their family having failed to bring them up properly" than "my family make me do it", but in the mainstream of British Muslim life that is a hijab thing not a burka thing and wearing a burka would mark them out as basically a bit weird.
But I don't think "people being intimidated and forced to do something they don't want to do" plus "people who are just not challenging the convention within their circle but don't feel intimidated into it either" quite captures the spectrum of what is going on - in many other cases this is something active rather than passive, and there is a zealous aspect to it.
I'm not stating that as a pro or a con, just an observation.
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
Just think, this time next year we could have President Trump and President Le Pen, in which case never mind the EU, the WTO would probably have collapsed as well, maybe even NATO
Boris, Fox and Davis WILL have an agreed Brexit strategy in place within the next few months.
Theresa WILL trigger A50 early next year.
British position sounds like it's NOT "that fussed" about staying in the Single Market.
We we don't want to seem too keen and give the game away, so are we bluffing? Or maybe double bluffing? Or triple bluffing?
Not really. The options are the EEA, a multilateral arrangement that resembles the EU with extra disadvantages or a minimalist bilateral FTA. We can reject the first because our real objection to the EU is that it is multilateral and we want a bilateral arrangement. A Swiss type bilateral deal requries too much time and a will from both sides that just isn't there. The Canadian FTA runs to 1000 pages, took ten years and still isn't ratified and isn't that great anyway.
So sort out the non-contentious elements like tariff-free trade in machinery and chemicals, sign a deal, dial the spin up to the max, and get out.
It's going to be mediocre, but that's where we are.
Given the Swiss have just voted against free movement they will be watching what we get with interest
I don't think the Swiss want to see the end of their bilateral arrangement. The EU, on the other hand largely thinks the Swiss deal was a mistake and keeps trying to manoeuvre it in a multilateral direction. The stalemate could continue for quite some time.
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
There never used to be burkas in Holloway when I lived round there in the 1990s, despite the large moslem population; ditto in Balsall Heath when I lived there in the 1980s. Women have made a conscious decision to do it. But I am not sure they have suddenly become more religious. I suspect - and fear - they are seeking to emphasise their separateness.
My mum reckons it's similar thing in southern India. In Kerala, where roughly 25% are Muslim, she reckons hardly anybody wore a burqa when she was growing up (say 1940s, 1950s), whereas nowadays it's mainstream.
Boris, Fox and Davis WILL have an agreed Brexit strategy in place within the next few months.
Theresa WILL trigger A50 early next year.
British position sounds like it's NOT "that fussed" about staying in the Single Market.
We we don't want to seem too keen and give the game away, so are we bluffing? Or maybe double bluffing? Or triple bluffing?
Not really. The options are the EEA, a multilateral arrangement that resembles the EU with extra disadvantages or a minimalist bilateral FTA. We can reject the first because our real objection to the EU is that it is multilateral and we want a bilateral arrangement. A Swiss type bilateral deal requries too much time and a will from both sides that just isn't there. The Canadian FTA runs to 1000 pages, took ten years and still isn't ratified and isn't that great anyway.
So sort out the non-contentious elements like tariff-free trade in machinery and chemicals, sign a deal, dial the spin up to the max, and get out.
It's going to be mediocre, but that's where we are.
Given the Swiss have just voted against free movement they will be watching what we get with interest
I don't think the Swiss want to see the end of their bilateral arrangement. The EU, on the other hand largely thinks the Swiss deal was a mistake and keeps trying to manoeuvre it in a multilateral direction. The stalemate could continue for quite some time.
If the alternative is multilateralism and the EEA or a UK style controlled free movement deal then the Swiss will take the latter
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
As "Black Lives Matter" shows, things are hardly a bed of roses under the "black" Mr Obama.
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
Oh WAYCIST WAYCIST WAYCIST!!!!!!!!!!!!
This has traction with those who'd never vote for him - evah.
He isn't IMO - he's playing the liberals like a fiddle again and again.
Question for the smart people here. Do you think Theresa May will substantially bring down immigration? I had assumed Brexit wouldn't make much difference to levels of immigration beyond a possible recession effect. Immigration levels are high principally because it suits governments for it to be high, rather because they were unwillingly forced into it by the EU, and because successful open globalised economies tend to have high immigration levels. However, reducing immigration seems to be Theresa May's main objective and that's largely guiding the Brexit strategies. The other point of course is that she completely failed to tackle the problem while Home Secretary.
...
When I tot up the numbers in the various extant visa schemes, I struggle to see how she can get it under 175k, and that's assuming we have trend growth closer to the EZ for the next few years.
Oh come on, Mr. M., use your imagination a bit. I am sure, if by some magic, you were suddenly dropped into the Home Office with responsibility for designing a policy for reducing immigration by, say, 75% you would come up with a workable policy inside a fortnight.
It is the politics that is the bugger.
I'd take student numbers out . Voila.
So would I, Mr. M, but you need to have a system of counting them in and counting them out, which we do not have and perhaps some sort of bond paid up-front by the Uni that they forfeit if their students don't go.
As with students, temporary workers' permits, with an employer's bond and no access to public funds save emergency health care and certainly no permanent right of abode, would solve most of employers concerns as well as those who are worried about pressure on public services housing etc.
None of that is new. It is basically what we used to have (save the bonds which I think are now needed).
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
There never used to be burkas in Holloway when I lived round there in the 1990s, despite the large moslem population; ditto in Balsall Heath when I lived there in the 1980s. Women have made a conscious decision to do it. But I am not sure they have suddenly become more religious. I suspect - and fear - they are seeking to emphasise their separateness.
Do you really think it is the women that have made the decision?
Yes, I do. If it were otherwise their mums and grandmothers would also have worn them.
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
Just think, this time next year we could have President Trump and President Le Pen, in which case never mind the EU, the WTO would probably have collapsed as well, maybe even NATO
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
Oh WAYCIST WAYCIST WAYCIST!!!!!!!!!!!!
This has traction with those who'd never vote for him - evah.
He isn't IMO - he's playing the liberals like a fiddle again and again.
It might not bother you, but in the US having such a person as head of state could be very explosive. There's a reason why the head of the KKK wants Trump to win. He will feel empowered.
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
As "Black Lives Matter" shows, things are hardly a bed of roses under the "black" Mr Obama.
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
Just think, this time next year we could have President Trump and President Le Pen, in which case never mind the EU, the WTO would probably have collapsed as well, maybe even NATO
Question for the smart people here. Do you think Theresa May will substantially bring down immigration? I had assumed Brexit wouldn't make much difference to levels of immigration beyond a possible recession effect. Immigration levels are high principally because it suits governments for it to be high, rather because they were unwillingly forced into it by the EU, and because successful open globalised economies tend to have high immigration levels. However, reducing immigration seems to be Theresa May's main objective and that's largely guiding the Brexit strategies. The other point of course is that she completely failed to tackle the problem while Home Secretary.
It is quite possible that Mrs May's time at Home has given her a really good insight into the difficulties and hence she might be very well placed to be effective now that she can truly guide policy.
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
As "Black Lives Matter" shows, things are hardly a bed of roses under the "black" Mr Obama.
Just you wait. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Cobblers - Obama and Hillary are stoking race issues I thought were dead and buried 20yrs ago.
BLM is an odious organisation and the murder of police officers is appalling. Sheriff Clarke is spot on.
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
There never used to be burkas in Holloway when I lived round there in the 1990s, despite the large moslem population; ditto in Balsall Heath when I lived there in the 1980s. Women have made a conscious decision to do it. But I am not sure they have suddenly become more religious. I suspect - and fear - they are seeking to emphasise their separateness.
Do you really think it is the women that have made the decision?
Yes, I do. If it were otherwise their mums and grandmothers would also have worn them.
Maybe their fathers and grandfathers didn't force them to? It seems to me people that are Muslim who have never lived in an Islamic country are more extreme than those who chose to leave one
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
There never used to be burkas in Holloway when I lived round there in the 1990s, despite the large moslem population; ditto in Balsall Heath when I lived there in the 1980s. Women have made a conscious decision to do it. But I am not sure they have suddenly become more religious. I suspect - and fear - they are seeking to emphasise their separateness.
Do you really think it is the women that have made the decision?
Yes, I do. If it were otherwise their mums and grandmothers would also have worn them.
Ok. Now, you are a clever bloke so why not have a think, a real think about the consequences if you are right?
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
As "Black Lives Matter" shows, things are hardly a bed of roses under the "black" Mr Obama.
Just you wait. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Cobblers - Obama and Hillary are stoking race issues I thought were dead and buried 20yrs ago.
BLM is an odious organisation and the murder of police officers is appalling. Sheriff Clarke is spot on.
Trump is a racist. The US's current racial problems will be exacerbated. Sorry.
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
There never used to be burkas in Holloway when I lived round there in the 1990s, despite the large moslem population; ditto in Balsall Heath when I lived there in the 1980s. Women have made a conscious decision to do it. But I am not sure they have suddenly become more religious. I suspect - and fear - they are seeking to emphasise their separateness.
Do you really think it is the women that have made the decision?
Yes, I do. If it were otherwise their mums and grandmothers would also have worn them.
Ok. Now, you are a clever bloke so why not have a think, a real think about the consequences if you are right?
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
Just think, this time next year we could have President Trump and President Le Pen, in which case never mind the EU, the WTO would probably have collapsed as well, maybe even NATO
I wish there was a roll-eyes emoji here.
Well there is certainly a chance of all of that happening, nationalism and protectionism are clearly on the march, goodnight
"Hillary Clinton must be worried that black America is about to be onto her party’s grand hoax. Donald Trump’s statement of the patently obvious, that black Americans “have nothing to lose” by trying out something different and voting for the businessman instead of the crook, has created an earthquake as the media rush to cover up for the story they never told.
The story of the misery of black America under Democrat rule – and nowhere is it clearer than in America’s urban ghettos"
Yes, I do. If it were otherwise their mums and grandmothers would also have worn them.
This argument doesn't quite hold water because it is open to the counter-argument that perhaps it is male expectations of "appropriate" female dress that have changed, and so the pressures on women have changed since their parents' generation. (And there are good reason to think these may have changed, globally, due to the oil-funded propagation of attitudes that were previously more localised to the Middle East.)
My inclination is that it's a mix - there are certainly some domineering menfolk about, so one must suspect some are forced into it. Others clearly view it as a social norm, as Nick Palmer suggests, that they simply have no desire to challenge. (This is to some extent external pressure, but not far removed from the various social pressures we all feel - on a hot day when in more relaxed parts of the world, women might happily walk around obliviously topless, a British woman may put a skimpy top on but the idea of going out bare might not even cross her mind.)
There are also women who proactively pursue it - they feel comfortable in it, happier in it, it's a way of escaping male attention and being judged by looks, it's a way of feeling a distinctive identity, a sense of sisterhood, a sense of being apart.
Quite what the ratio is between these components I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess. The ones who turn up on TV or newspaper interviews to explain their viewpoint are drawn, necessarily, from the "vocal zealot" category.
Yes, I do. If it were otherwise their mums and grandmothers would also have worn them.
This argument doesn't quite hold water because it is open to the counter-argument that perhaps it is male expectations of "appropriate" female dress that have changed, and so the pressures on women have changed since their parents' generation. (And there are good reason to think these may have changed, globally, due to the oil-funded propagation of attitudes that were previously more localised to the Middle East.)
My inclination is that it's a mix - there are certainly some domineering menfolk about, so one must suspect some are forced into it. Others clearly view it as a social norm, as Nick Palmer suggests, that they simply have no desire to challenge. (This is to some extent external pressure, but not far removed from the various social pressures we all feel - on a hot day when in more relaxed parts of the world, women might happily walk around obliviously topless, a British woman may put a skimpy top on but the idea of going out bare might not even cross her mind.)
There are also women who proactively pursue it - they feel comfortable in it, happier in it, it's a way of escaping male attention and being judged by looks, it's a way of feeling a distinctive identity, a sense of sisterhood, a sense of being apart.
Quite what the ratio is between these components I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess. The ones who turn up on TV or newspaper interviews to explain their viewpoint are drawn, necessarily, from the "vocal zealot" category.
I am sure some are forced into it. But my impression is that for most it is a conscious decision designed to emphasise difference. I don't see it as positive in any way.
Yes, I do. If it were otherwise their mums and grandmothers would also have worn them.
This argument doesn't quite hold water because it is open to the counter-argument that perhaps it is male expectations of "appropriate" female dress that have changed, and so the pressures on women have changed since their parents' generation. (And there are good reason to think these may have changed, globally, due to the oil-funded propagation of attitudes that were previously more localised to the Middle East.)
My inclination is that it's a mix - there are certainly some domineering menfolk about, so one must suspect some are forced into it. Others clearly view it as a social norm, as Nick Palmer suggests, that they simply have no desire to challenge. (This is to some extent external pressure, but not far removed from the various social pressures we all feel - on a hot day when in more relaxed parts of the world, women might happily walk around obliviously topless, a British woman may put a skimpy top on but the idea of going out bare might not even cross her mind.)
There are also women who proactively pursue it - they feel comfortable in it, happier in it, it's a way of escaping male attention and being judged by looks, it's a way of feeling a distinctive identity, a sense of sisterhood, a sense of being apart.
Quite what the ratio is between these components I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess. The ones who turn up on TV or newspaper interviews to explain their viewpoint are drawn, necessarily, from the "vocal zealot" category.
I am sure some are forced into it. But my impression is that for most it is a conscious decision designed to emphasise difference. I don't see it as positive in any way.
''think Trump will be an awful President, probably the worst in living memory at the least. ''
America is a democracy, and a pretty logjammed one at that. The chances of Trump doing much radical or damaging are I think limited.
And this campaign is showing he is learning as he goes. He knew he needed to reorientate his campaign - enter Farage stage left.
I'm not worried about Trump as POTUS at all. I think he'll be pretty sensible and as you say constrained by the system. He will do great rhetoric and be a lot more robust about looking after his country.
I can't knock that given my enthusiasm for Brexit.
Electing a racist as head of state will be inflammatory at best. At worst it could be catastrophic. Race is a very, very big deal in the US. And who knows how people on both extremes will react to President Trump?
As "Black Lives Matter" shows, things are hardly a bed of roses under the "black" Mr Obama.
Just you wait. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Cobblers - Obama and Hillary are stoking race issues I thought were dead and buried 20yrs ago.
BLM is an odious organisation and the murder of police officers is appalling. Sheriff Clarke is spot on.
Trump is a racist. The US's current racial problems will be exacerbated. Sorry.
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
There never used to be burkas in Holloway when I lived round there in the 1990s, despite the large moslem population; ditto in Balsall Heath when I lived there in the 1980s. Women have made a conscious decision to do it. But I am not sure they have suddenly become more religious. I suspect - and fear - they are seeking to emphasise their separateness.
Do you really think it is the women that have made the decision?
Yes, I do. If it were otherwise their mums and grandmothers would also have worn them.
Maybe their fathers and grandfathers didn't force them to? It seems to me people that are Muslim who have never lived in an Islamic country are more extreme than those who chose to leave one
It seems to me people that are Muslim who have never lived in an Islamic country are more extreme than those who chose to leave one
I've read several studies showing that second-generation (i.e. born here to Muslim parents who immigrated to the UK) British Muslims have far more socially liberal attitudes than their parents, even if they maintain their religiosity. This includes issues like dress, homosexuality, pre-marital sex and alcohol, and in a study of Somali girls I read it also included FGM. However, their attitudes are comparatively more conservative than non-Muslim Brits their age. The gap seems to narrow with subsequent generations - arguably a good reason to discourage the shipping in of spouses from abroad, since it keeps many communities "eternally second generation".
The idea of younger Muslims being more liberal than their parents but less than non-Muslims around them tallies with my experience: older or more conservative Muslims I know feeling that the next generation is becoming too westernised, and younger Muslims I know often having a hodge-podge of behaviours well-captured by Foxinsox's anecdote of the girls wearing hijabs, makeup and hotpants. Most but not all younger, British-born Muslims I know*, both male and female, were sexually active in late teens or at university, and most drink at least occasionally. In many cases a lot of the wilder activities starts to dry up as they get older, get a bit more "serious", and begin to focus on more traditional values like finding a spouse and starting a family.
But that "wilder than you might expect if you rely only on second-hand reports and don't actually talk to them" side cuts across people I know of Pakistani, Indian, Bengali, Somali, other African, Arab and Kurdish backgrounds, as well as cutting across religious lines (Sunni, mainline Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadi).
On the other hand, converts (whether with a white British or e.g. Indian or Afro-Caribbean background) do seem to be likely to be extreme, though I can't recall reading a study on it. Certainly converts are more likely to be found wearing a burka, and it is well-documented that converts are disproportionately likely to be radicalised.
* Clearly I am more likely to meet more liberal Muslims since more conservative ones are less likely to be in my social circle - not just due to being more culturally closed, but also due to them tending to have lower socio-economic status. Not claiming this is a representative sample.
...Do you think Theresa May will substantially bring down immigration?...
Let's put aside the moment any immigration changes due to recession/boom in UK/abroad, and let's divide this into two parts
1) BEFORE IMPOSITION OF IMMIGRATION CONTROLS A counterintuitive side effect of imposing immigration controls that in the short term they cause immigration to rise, as new immigrants attempt to beat the deadline and existing ones stop leaving in case they can't get back
2) AFTER IMPOSITION OF IMMIGRATION CONTROLS There is a school of thought in the Conservative Party that says the way forward post-Brexit is to go for growth by borrowing and *encouraging* immigration, Let's call this the Nelson-Hannan axis, and see this Spectator editorial. Conversely, some Conservatives actually do want to *reduce* immigration (although "less immigration" may simply mean population goes "up less quickly", instead of "down"). Whichever side wins will dictate what happens.
So immigration goes up in the short term, and may continue to do so thereafter, although differential growth rates may exacerbate/swamp this.
Maybe their fathers and grandfathers didn't force them to? It seems to me people that are Muslim who have never lived in an Islamic country are more extreme than those who chose to leave one
yes. that is sometimes true
Something often told to me by younger Muslims I know, and rather more elusively suggested by folk the generation above, is that those who have migrated are put under massive social pressure by family elders back in the "old country" to show that moving to the West hasn't corrupted them or brought the family into disrepute in any way.
So for example, when (as often happens) Asian families spend the summer going back home, the kids have to be put out on parade as "good young Muslims", and any failings are severely looked down upon. There are potentially big social implications at stake e.g. in marriage-making stakes, and also economic ones, if the migrant family still own significant assets back in the old country (e.g. even very poor Bangladeshi migrants in the UK often own surprisingly large tracts of agricultural land) which family members who stayed behind have a key role in managing.
From all accounts I've heard, this is a powerful force of social conservatism, and can lead to one-upmanship when several families (especially related) have migrated to Britain, each trying to prove that they are the least corrupted!
IIRC you have a Pakistani background, would be interesting if you've seen something like this.
It seems to me people that are Muslim who have never lived in an Islamic country are more extreme than those who chose to leave one
I've read several studies showing that second-generation (i.e. born here to Muslim parents who immigrated to the UK) British Muslims have far more socially liberal attitudes than their parents, even if they maintain their religiosity. This includes issues like dress, homosexuality, pre-marital sex and alcohol, and in a study of Somali girls I read it also included FGM. However, their attitudes are comparatively more conservative than non-Muslim Brits their age. The gap seems to narrow with subsequent generations - arguably a good reason to discourage the shipping in of spouses from abroad, since it keeps many communities "eternally second generation".
The idea of younger Muslims being more liberal than their parents but less than non-Muslims around them tallies with my experience: older or more conservative Muslims I know feeling that the next generation is becoming too westernised, and younger Muslims I know often having a hodge-podge of behaviours well-captured by Foxinsox's anecdote of the girls wearing hijabs, makeup and hotpants. Most but not all younger, British-born Muslims I know*, both male and female, were sexually active in late teens or at university, and most drink at least occasionally. In many cases a lot of the wilder activities starts to dry up as they get older, get a bit more "serious", and begin to focus on more traditional values like finding a spouse and starting a family.
But that "wilder than you might expect if you rely only on second-hand reports and don't actually talk to them" side cuts across people I know of Pakistani, Indian, Bengali, Somali, other African, Arab and Kurdish backgrounds, as well as cutting across religious lines (Sunni, mainline Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadi).
On the other hand, converts (whether with a white British or e.g. Indian or Afro-Caribbean background) do seem to be likely to be extreme, though I can't recall reading a study on it. Certainly converts are more likely to be found wearing a burka, and it is well-documented that converts are disproportionately likely to be radicalised.
* Clearly I am more likely to meet more liberal Muslims since more conservative ones are less likely to be in my social circle - not just due to being more culturally closed, but also due to them tending to have lower socio-economic status. Not claiming this is a representative sample.
The studies I have seen say the opposite - first generation immigrants more open and tolerant than their children. I think if I remember correctly pew did something on this.
fair enough, though I doubt anybody in a Burka would be prepared to shake my hand anyway.
When I worked in the Middle East we were told to avoid any physical contact. Even accidental. Hubby could get quite upset otherwise......
It varies, and I think London dwellers compromise a lot more than I imagine Saudi dwellers do. Round my way (Holloway) my impression is that most burka wearers are just normal people, not particularly shy or intimidated, who don't feel the need to challenge the convention in their circles. I don't especially like it but the concerns are best addressed by stressing the importance of free choice, rather than by legislative fiat.
There never used to be burkas in Holloway when I lived round there in the 1990s, despite the large moslem population; ditto in Balsall Heath when I lived there in the 1980s. Women have made a conscious decision to do it. But I am not sure they have suddenly become more religious. I suspect - and fear - they are seeking to emphasise their separateness.
Do you really think it is the women that have made the decision?
Yes, I do. If it were otherwise their mums and grandmothers would also have worn them.
Ah bless.
Sorry Southam there is a lot of pressure from the male dominated society.
Maybe their fathers and grandfathers didn't force them to? It seems to me people that are Muslim who have never lived in an Islamic country are more extreme than those who chose to leave one
yes. that is sometimes true
Something often told to me by younger Muslims I know, and rather more elusively suggested by folk the generation above, is that those who have migrated are put under massive social pressure by family elders back in the "old country" to show that moving to the West hasn't corrupted them or brought the family into disrepute in any way.
So for example, when (as often happens) Asian families spend the summer going back home, the kids have to be put out on parade as "good young Muslims", and any failings are severely looked down upon. There are potentially big social implications at stake e.g. in marriage-making stakes, and also economic ones, if the migrant family still own significant assets back in the old country (e.g. even very poor Bangladeshi migrants in the UK often own surprisingly large tracts of agricultural land) which family members who stayed behind have a key role in managing.
From all accounts I've heard, this is a powerful force of social conservatism, and can lead to one-upmanship when several families (especially related) have migrated to Britain, each trying to prove that they are the least corrupted!
IIRC you have a Pakistani background, would be interesting if you've seen something like this.
No I've not seen any one upmanship or heard of any. I have cousins who come from rural and urban Pakistan from poor and rich families. Though not from Kashmir.
The majority of people who are social conservatives are genuinely doing it because they believe their religion tells them to not because their family members force them to. Many younger generation Muslims bereate their older parents for "mixing culture with religion".
The studies I have seen say the opposite - first generation immigrants more open and tolerant than their children. I think if I remember correctly pew did something on this.
A couple of the papers I read are paywalled (I have fortunate enough to have an academic login) but some of the abstracts are available if you're interested. Pew did a big multi-country survey but it had more focus on the USA (though it also looked at attitudes in Muslim majority countries).
Looking at the cross-tabs on it, the 18-34 year groups seem substantially more socially liberal than the "middle aged" groups, and the 65+ group noticeably more conservative again.
(To find the relative cross-tabs, search the document for "Q.47 Age")
Nothing bitter, just my honest views. As I said earlier, I'm intensely relaxed about both my vote and the outcome.
Good for you. So am I, although I'm still very concerned about the medium-term (2 years or so) economic risks. Now that the decision has been taken, the key thing is to make sure we get the advantages of Brexit whilst mitigating, as far as possible, the disadvantages.
Glad to see you saying that Richard.
Personally, I think May has got this right. First showing of cards to the EU is our red lines: - UK to control its immigration - UK to make its own laws - UK does not pay into the EU
Then WE ask the question, "Given that, EU, how would you like to trade with us?"
"Hillary Clinton’s favorability among women has suddenly reversed itself.
Last month, women had a largely favorable view of the Democratic presidential candidate, with 54 percent viewing her positively and 43 percent viewing her negatively. But those numbers have flipped in the last few weeks, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Women now dislike Clinton, with 52 percent holding a negative view and 45 percent holding a positive view. This is the first time in year that more women have disliked Clinton than liked her."
What have I missed? Why have women suddenly gone off Hillary?
Has she started writing in block capitals?
Only women of a certain age have ever been for Hillary, the rest have never liked her. Younger women 18-25 were nearly all for Bernie. Even the 25-45 bracket was extremely luke warm on Hillary throughout the primaries.
No I've not seen any one upmanship or heard of any. I have cousins who come from rural and urban Pakistan from poor and rich families. Though not from Kashmir.
The majority of people who are social conservatives are genuinely doing it because they believe their religion tells them to not because their family members force them to. Many younger generation Muslims bereate their older parents for "mixing culture with religion".
Thanks for that.
A Kashmiri chap I knew was constantly bemoaning how the state of Kashmiris in Britain was quite different to other Pakistani groups and was constantly berating them - thought they were backwards, not interested in education, wanted to scrounge off benefits... he wished they had some of the drive to succeed educationally/professionally that he saw in the communities with roots in Lahore or Karachi. I'm curious how big the economic divide actually is, and to what extent he was exaggerating. Interestingly he though that young British Kashmiris actually had the worst of all worlds - socially and culturally extremely backwards in their attitudes (eg treatment of women, lack of desire for "Western" education) despite being (in his moderately religious eyes) religiously lapsed and unobservant, for instance when it came to alcohol, girls and petty crime.
Some of the more extreme tales of one-upmanship in devotion I have heard came from the Ahmadiyya comunity - not associated with being extreme or radical, but very devout, and where e.g. aspects of "purity" or great deeds of "do-gooding" are highly valued. I suppose there is also an "everyone knows everyone" element to a small sect that encourages people to compete, even on things as apparently petty as "how close can you live to the mosque". (People living far away may be seen as less reliable, less likely to hold a senior position in the community and so on.)
I've also had Bangladeshis tell me about massive family gatherings: hundreds of people brought together from all over the diaspora. There was a performance pressure akin to to the social media show-off's need to constantly put your best face forward. You all had to be living the picture-perfect immigrant experience in the "country of your family's dreams", while also staying completely in tune with the old country's ways and styles and mores. School-age kids had to have their school reports read out, everyone's university grades and job prospects appraised, everyone wearing Bengali dress as authentic and traditional as possible (regardless of what they wore in everyday Western life) while girls in particular faced the tricky and hypocritical challenge of looking totally demure and conservative while also appearing beautiful and drowning-in-makeup radiant. A foot put wrong, e.g. your girl gossiped to other girls that she'd messed around with western boys, and you could be ostracised for decades.
So Dave completely misjudged his role as a persuader. Essentially he was a substantial force pushing us out of the EU. The more 'pumped up' he became, the better he was for Leave
So Dave completely misjudged his role as a persuader. Essentially he was a substantial force pushing us out of the EU. The more 'pumped up' he became, the better he was for Leave
Unpleasant attack from someone who was clearly out to cause damage to others. Going out carrying a blade is never a good sign.
But what is the point you are trying to make by highlighting it?
Racism has always existed. Extremists have always existed. There is nothing we can do to totally eliminate the risk that something like this will occur.
All we can do is educate people in the ways of tolerance and equality - and ensure that those who break the law are punished to the fullest extent possible.
But we cannot control each individual and their thoughts.
'in 2020 labour wins or loses.' Nick, it loses. It very clearly loses. It loses big. If x Labour MPs can't see this no wonder Labour is such a disaster.
Comments
May is starting out with a position of no full SM membership, but would like to bargain for sector by sector membership in return for concessions elsewhere.
I wouldn't withhold my vote if May failed again. When I tot up the numbers in the various extant visa schemes, I struggle to see how she can get it under 175k, and that's assuming we have trend growth closer to the EZ for the next few years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37222863
"Hillary Clinton’s favorability among women has suddenly reversed itself.
Last month, women had a largely favorable view of the Democratic presidential candidate, with 54 percent viewing her positively and 43 percent viewing her negatively. But those numbers have flipped in the last few weeks, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Women now dislike Clinton, with 52 percent holding a negative view and 45 percent holding a positive view. This is the first time in year that more women have disliked Clinton than liked her."
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/bad-hillary-clinton-now-underwater-women/#st_refDomain=&st_refQuery=
So sort out the non-contentious elements like tariff-free trade in machinery and chemicals, sign a deal, dial the spin up to the max, and get out.
It's going to be mediocre, but that's where we are.
Oh come on, Mr. M., use your imagination a bit. I am sure, if by some magic, you were suddenly dropped into the Home Office with responsibility for designing a policy for reducing immigration by, say, 75% you would come up with a workable policy inside a fortnight.
It is the politics that is the bugger.
Has she started writing in block capitals?
Clearly there is a "free choice" issue - a lot of Muslim women I know feel under more pressure to wear the hijab than they feel comfortable with, more usually because they "don't want community elders gossiping about their family having failed to bring them up properly" than "my family make me do it", but in the mainstream of British Muslim life that is a hijab thing not a burka thing and wearing a burka would mark them out as basically a bit weird.
But I don't think "people being intimidated and forced to do something they don't want to do" plus "people who are just not challenging the convention within their circle but don't feel intimidated into it either" quite captures the spectrum of what is going on - in many other cases this is something active rather than passive, and there is a zealous aspect to it.
I'm not stating that as a pro or a con, just an observation.
https://twitter.com/howiewolf/status/771087015387533313
This has traction with those who'd never vote for him - evah.
He isn't IMO - he's playing the liberals like a fiddle again and again.
As with students, temporary workers' permits, with an employer's bond and no access to public funds save emergency health care and certainly no permanent right of abode, would solve most of employers concerns as well as those who are worried about pressure on public services housing etc.
None of that is new. It is basically what we used to have (save the bonds which I think are now needed).
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-keeps-up-attacks-on-judge-gonzalo-curiel-1464911442
It might not bother you, but in the US having such a person as head of state could be very explosive. There's a reason why the head of the KKK wants Trump to win. He will feel empowered.
In response to @pollytoynbee's article on the shipping industry this week. https://t.co/LFjuDxCIZP
BLM is an odious organisation and the murder of police officers is appalling. Sheriff Clarke is spot on.
Clinton’s unpopularity reaches new high, putting her on par with Trump among registered voters, new poll finds. https://t.co/Ot5038I71G
I dread to think what will happen if the courts rule May doesn't have the authority to invoke Article 50.
"Hillary Clinton must be worried that black America is about to be onto her party’s grand hoax. Donald Trump’s statement of the patently obvious, that black Americans “have nothing to lose” by trying out something different and voting for the businessman instead of the crook, has created an earthquake as the media rush to cover up for the story they never told.
The story of the misery of black America under Democrat rule – and nowhere is it clearer than in America’s urban ghettos"
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidclarke/2016/08/hillary-panics-as-blacks-realize-democrats-have-destroyed-their-lives/#st_refDomain=&st_refQuery=
My inclination is that it's a mix - there are certainly some domineering menfolk about, so one must suspect some are forced into it. Others clearly view it as a social norm, as Nick Palmer suggests, that they simply have no desire to challenge. (This is to some extent external pressure, but not far removed from the various social pressures we all feel - on a hot day when in more relaxed parts of the world, women might happily walk around obliviously topless, a British woman may put a skimpy top on but the idea of going out bare might not even cross her mind.)
There are also women who proactively pursue it - they feel comfortable in it, happier in it, it's a way of escaping male attention and being judged by looks, it's a way of feeling a distinctive
identity, a sense of sisterhood, a sense of being apart.
Quite what the ratio is between these components I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess. The ones who turn up on TV or newspaper interviews to explain their viewpoint are drawn, necessarily, from the "vocal zealot" category.
EDIT, OK, so that didn't work!
The idea of younger Muslims being more liberal than their parents but less than non-Muslims around them tallies with my experience: older or more conservative Muslims I know feeling that the next generation is becoming too westernised, and younger Muslims I know often having a hodge-podge of behaviours well-captured by Foxinsox's anecdote of the girls wearing hijabs, makeup and hotpants. Most but not all younger, British-born Muslims I know*, both male and female, were sexually active in late teens or at university, and most drink at least occasionally. In many cases a lot of the wilder activities starts to dry up as they get older, get a bit more "serious", and begin to focus on more traditional values like finding a spouse and starting a family.
But that "wilder than you might expect if you rely only on second-hand reports and don't actually talk to them" side cuts across people I know of Pakistani, Indian, Bengali, Somali, other African, Arab and Kurdish backgrounds, as well as cutting across religious lines (Sunni, mainline Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadi).
On the other hand, converts (whether with a white British or e.g. Indian or Afro-Caribbean background) do seem to be likely to be extreme, though I can't recall reading a study on it. Certainly converts are more likely to be found wearing a burka, and it is well-documented that converts are disproportionately likely to be radicalised.
* Clearly I am more likely to meet more liberal Muslims since more conservative ones are less likely to be in my social circle - not just due to being more culturally closed, but also due to them tending to have lower socio-economic status. Not claiming this is a representative sample.
1) BEFORE IMPOSITION OF IMMIGRATION CONTROLS
A counterintuitive side effect of imposing immigration controls that in the short term they cause immigration to rise, as new immigrants attempt to beat the deadline and existing ones stop leaving in case they can't get back
2) AFTER IMPOSITION OF IMMIGRATION CONTROLS
There is a school of thought in the Conservative Party that says the way forward post-Brexit is to go for growth by borrowing and *encouraging* immigration, Let's call this the Nelson-Hannan axis, and see this Spectator editorial. Conversely, some Conservatives actually do want to *reduce* immigration (although "less immigration" may simply mean population goes "up less quickly", instead of "down"). Whichever side wins will dictate what happens.
So immigration goes up in the short term, and may continue to do so thereafter, although differential growth rates may exacerbate/swamp this.
Does that help?
So for example, when (as often happens) Asian families spend the summer going back home, the kids have to be put out on parade as "good young Muslims", and any failings are severely looked down upon. There are potentially big social implications at stake e.g. in marriage-making stakes, and also economic ones, if the migrant family still own significant assets back in the old country (e.g. even very poor Bangladeshi migrants in the UK often own surprisingly large tracts of agricultural land) which family members who stayed behind have a key role in managing.
From all accounts I've heard, this is a powerful force of social conservatism, and can lead to one-upmanship when several families (especially related) have migrated to Britain, each trying to prove that they are the least corrupted!
IIRC you have a Pakistani background, would be interesting if you've seen something like this.
Sorry Southam there is a lot of pressure from the male dominated society.
FBI said this month that it turned over 2 DVDs of deleted HRC material to State. Today, FBI says real number 7 https://t.co/v27VNXmD11
The majority of people who are social conservatives are genuinely doing it because they believe their religion tells them to not because their family members force them to. Many younger generation Muslims bereate their older parents for "mixing culture with religion".
edit. sorry I actually assumed that you wrote murder by police officers is appalling. but you didn't.
I suspect the one you're thinking of is ICM for Channel 4?
Looking at the cross-tabs on it, the 18-34 year groups seem substantially more socially liberal than the "middle aged" groups, and the 65+ group noticeably more conservative again.
(To find the relative cross-tabs, search the document for "Q.47 Age")
Personally, I think May has got this right. First showing of cards to the EU is our red lines:
- UK to control its immigration
- UK to make its own laws
- UK does not pay into the EU
Then WE ask the question, "Given that, EU, how would you like to trade with us?"
A Kashmiri chap I knew was constantly bemoaning how the state of Kashmiris in Britain was quite different to other Pakistani groups and was constantly berating them - thought they were backwards, not interested in education, wanted to scrounge off benefits... he wished they had some of the drive to succeed educationally/professionally that he saw in the communities with roots in Lahore or Karachi. I'm curious how big the economic divide actually is, and to what extent he was exaggerating. Interestingly he though that young British Kashmiris actually had the worst of all worlds - socially and culturally extremely backwards in their attitudes (eg treatment of women, lack of desire for "Western" education) despite being (in his moderately religious eyes) religiously lapsed and unobservant, for instance when it came to alcohol, girls and petty crime.
Some of the more extreme tales of one-upmanship in devotion I have heard came from the Ahmadiyya comunity - not associated with being extreme or radical, but very devout, and where e.g. aspects of "purity" or great deeds of "do-gooding" are highly valued. I suppose there is also an "everyone knows everyone" element to a small sect that encourages people to compete, even on things as apparently petty as "how close can you live to the mosque". (People living far away may be seen as less reliable, less likely to hold a senior position in the community and so on.)
I've also had Bangladeshis tell me about massive family gatherings: hundreds of people brought together from all over the diaspora. There was a performance pressure akin to to the social media show-off's need to constantly put your best face forward. You all had to be living the picture-perfect immigrant experience in the "country of your family's dreams", while also staying completely in tune with the old country's ways and styles and mores. School-age kids had to have their school reports read out, everyone's university grades and job prospects appraised, everyone wearing Bengali dress as authentic and traditional as possible (regardless of what they wore in everyday Western life) while girls in particular faced the tricky and hypocritical challenge of looking totally demure and conservative while also appearing beautiful and drowning-in-makeup radiant. A foot put wrong, e.g. your girl gossiped to other girls that she'd messed around with western boys, and you could be ostracised for decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaF_NwVbIgo
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/david-cameron-and-jeremy-corbyn-made-more-people-vote-leave-at-e/
Less effective, in his chosen method, than Harold Wilson.
Near perfect..
Chortle.
"For Mr Corbyn far more people said his remarks made them more likely to leave the EU."
Although, I take all of it with a pinch of salt, given where this report is coming from. ERS run by AV backing Labourite.
But what is the point you are trying to make by highlighting it?
Racism has always existed. Extremists have always existed. There is nothing we can do to totally eliminate the risk that something like this will occur.
All we can do is educate people in the ways of tolerance and equality - and ensure that those who break the law are punished to the fullest extent possible.
But we cannot control each individual and their thoughts.