Article adorned with bar charts, lovely, lovely bar charts highlighting some grim news for Corbyn, but Friday next week might be more interesting to watch the impact.
What time might the declaration times be for Copeland and Stoke Central?
Undoubtedly. Given how it was much calmer in the aftermath of the Supreme Court case I wonder how much of it was genuine, as there was much less toys thrown out of pram behaviour. The whole thing was dispiriting really, since while there were legal arguments against the high court decision, as shown by some of the justices not siding with the majority, most of the coverage ignored the actual questions or legal issues, on motivations of the claimant rather than actual impact. Which I guess shouldn't be surprising, but given how simply the government has dealt with the ruling, and I recall hearing that's how they'd deal with it, so it was planned for, while I'd expect the media to be more emotional and simple about it, I am very cynical about the politicians who whipped up the fervour.
It was a genuine spasm, a flash of insight into the mindset of the Ben Tré Brexiters, who would leave nothing standing of this country in order to secure its exit from the EU.
Ben tre brexiters?
I recall even guido essentially telling my fellow brexiters to calm down and not overreact following the high court ruling, which certainly speaks to something.
Very interesting podcast. For those with no time to listen.....Trump's approval ratings are tanking. He arrived with the worst figures on record and they've just got worse. There's 4/1 at Paddy Power that he'll be impeached within a year.....
On fake news....people are pretty good at separating 'Daily Express' stories from real stories and on the whole peddling nasty stories about immigrants etc doesn't work.
On PB's own poll...respondents views on immigration are mixed. On the whole a good thing but some reservations.
My conclusions; PB posters are well to the right of the mean......
Footnote; Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
People are equally good at identifying the 'Guardian' stories from real news as well these days.
Are you SERIOUSLY equating Guardian stories with ones in the Express?
That would be unfair on the Express.
Anyone with any sense realises that ALL media outlets have their own built in biases and agendas. They skew their stories and articles according to their political slant. It's ludicrous that intelligent posters on here still see want to believe that any newspaper or broadcaster is really anymore truthful than another. I treat Littlejohn with the same contempt as Toynbee. Both as extreme as each other, and unable to see the perspective of the other side.
The Dail Heil is the worst paper. Best used as toilet paper.
Those sindy figures are still far too close for comfort in my opinion. It feels like its inevitable. Did Canada implement anything after their referendum that consolidated Quebec's position in Canada?
Canada has a proven and well-thought-through federal structure, whereas the UK doesn't, so the starting point isn't the same. I think implementing such a structure in the UK, with macroeconomic policy, defence and foreign affairs reserved to the centre, and everything else to the four nations, would be the best way to keep the Scots on board, if we want to.
Quebec has more devolved powers than the rest of Canada though and Scotland would have to 've tested in the same way
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
Very interesting podcast. For those with no time to listen.....Trump's approval ratings are tanking. He arrived with the worst figures on record and they've just got worse. There's 4/1 at Paddy Power that he'll be impeached within a year.....
On fake news....people are pretty good at separating 'Daily Express' stories from real stories and on the whole peddling nasty stories about immigrants etc doesn't work.
On PB's own poll...respondents views on immigration are mixed. On the whole a good thing but some reservations.
My conclusions; PB posters are well to the right of the mean......
Footnote; Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
People are equally good at identifying the 'Guardian' stories from real news as well these days.
Are you SERIOUSLY equating Guardian stories with ones in the Express?
That would be unfair on the Express.
Anyone with any sense realises that ALL media outlets have their own built in biases and agendas. They skew their stories and articles according to their political slant. It's ludicrous that intelligent posters on here still see want to believe that any newspaper or broadcaster is really anymore truthful than another. I treat Littlejohn with the same contempt as Toynbee. Both as extreme as each other, and unable to see the perspective of the other side.
The Dail Heil is the worst paper. Best used as toilet paper.
My conclusions; PB posters are well to the right of the mean......
My conclusions; You really don't understand polling.
The PB poll was commissioned by PB, among all UK adults, not among 'PB Posters'.....
I did understand that! I must have expressed myself badly. Looking again I can see how my comment might have have seemed ambiguous.
What meaning did you intend?
That the poll showed that the general public were more relaxed and reasonable about immigrants and immigration than I know the majotity of PB posters to be.
I'm unsure that's the case. There are some very (ahem) noisy anti-immigrant posters - some of whom post some fairly extreme and one-eyed stuff. There are also more reasoned views, (or at least reasoned from my POV).
The noisy extreme posts tend to get noticed over the more reasoned ones.
Agree - there are a range of views on PB - some well to the left of the public's
Though a very small number compared to those well to the very right like your goodself.
Actually the most common view on PB is probably LD/Cameroon though there are enough leftwingers, rightwingers, Brexiteers and Scottish nationalists like yourself to keep it interesting
Very interesting podcast. For those with no time to listen.....Trump's approval ratings are tanking. He arrived with the worst figures on record and they've just got worse. There's 4/1 at Paddy Power that he'll be impeached within a year.....
On fake news....people are pretty good at separating 'Daily Express' stories from real stories and on the whole peddling nasty stories about immigrants etc doesn't work.
On PB's own poll...respondents views on immigration are mixed. On the whole a good thing but some reservations.
My conclusions; PB posters are well to the right of the mean......
Footnote; Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
People are equally good at identifying the 'Guardian' stories from real news as well these days.
Are you SERIOUSLY equating Guardian stories with ones in the Express?
That would be unfair on the Express.
Anyone with any sense realises that ALL media outlets have their own built in biases and agendas. They skew their stories and articles according to their political slant. It's ludicrous that intelligent posters on here still see want to believe that any newspaper or broadcaster is really anymore truthful than another. I treat Littlejohn with the same contempt as Toynbee. Both as extreme as each other, and unable to see the perspective of the other side.
The Dail Heil is the worst paper. Best used as toilet paper.
They nailed Phil Shiner, though.
Fair comment, but generally their paper is full of fury, outrage, anger and other similes whilst not demonstrating any of the aforementioned similes to be true. It panders to peoples worst prejudices.
Wondering if there are any limits on what we are prepared to blame foreigners for and whether one day we'll take responsibility and fix our own problems.
You are wrong to point the finger at foreigners. We blame you lefties, who in turn accelerated immigration to "rub our noses in it".
The right sure like to find scapegoats and blame, whilst ironically preaching personal responsibility for others.
You're not a scapegoat when it is your fault.
Trouble is your blame is subjective. Just an opinion.
Very interesting podcast. For those with no time to listen.....Trump's approval ratings are tanking. He arrived with the worst figures on record and they've just got worse. There's 4/1 at Paddy Power that he'll be impeached within a year.....
On fake news....people are pretty good at separating 'Daily Express' stories from real stories and on the whole peddling nasty stories about immigrants etc doesn't work.
On PB's own poll...respondents views on immigration are mixed. On the whole a good thing but some reservations.
My conclusions; PB posters are well to the right of the mean......
Footnote; Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
People are equally good at identifying the 'Guardian' stories from real news as well these days.
Are you SERIOUSLY equating Guardian stories with ones in the Express?
That would be unfair on the Express.
Anyone with any sense realises that ALL media outlets have their own built in biases and agendas. They skew their stories and articles according to their political slant. It's ludicrous that intelligent posters on here still see want to believe that any newspaper or broadcaster is really anymore truthful than another. I treat Littlejohn with the same contempt as Toynbee. Both as extreme as each other, and unable to see the perspective of the other side.
The Dail Heil is the worst paper. Best used as toilet paper.
They nailed Phil Shiner, though.
And were very courageous over the alleged murders of Stephen Lawrence
But who can forgive them shutting down the Sunday Mirror throwing hundreds out of work on the basis of a lie?
Oh no, that was the Guardian and the News of the World....
Mr. Pubgoer, lefties want to create pathetic little fiefdoms (which worked so well elsewhere...), and I think the Conservatives are frit of emasculating Westminster in favour of England (though it's already happened for Scotland/Wales).
An English Parliament is the most obvious and popular answer, but the media/political class seem to not even contemplate it.
I would like an English parliament. And it can be done quite cheaply.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Mr. Pubgoer, quite, but when BBC Home Editor/metropolitan numpty Mark Easton visited Cornwall for a 'discussion piece' on devolution he went to a pub and asked a small group of locals if they'd like various options. Cornish, Cornish-Devonian and South-Western Assemblies were all mooted, but there was not even a whisper of an English Parliament.
Quebec has more devolved powers than the rest of Canada though and Scotland would have to 've tested in the same way
If we follow my excellent plan of only reserving defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy to the centre, it is difficult to see what else they could have...
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Very interesting podcast. For those with no time to listen.....Trump's approval ratings are tanking. He arrived with the worst figures on record and they've just got worse. There's 4/1 at Paddy Power that he'll be impeached within a year.....
Unpopularity isn't a sign somebody will be removed. Remember, they have the luxury of exhausted, divided, discredited and leaderless opponents. Clinton (again) had shocking approval ratings in April 1992 - he actually had to nominate William Henry Harrison when asked for a president who had done less well in the time - but still recovered to win in 1996 because the Republicans were even more useless.
Not sure I would describe the Democrats in those terms; they just won the popular vote in an election where 130m people voted and have a good chance of regaining the House in 2018, possibly the senate in 2020.
It's a far more apt description for Corbyn's Labour.
Very interesting podcast. For those with no time to listen.....Trump's approval ratings are tanking. He arrived with the worst figures on record and they've just got worse. There's 4/1 at Paddy Power that he'll be impeached within a year.....
On fake news....people are pretty good at separating 'Daily Express' stories from real stories and on the whole peddling nasty stories about immigrants etc doesn't work.
On PB's own poll...respondents views on immigration are mixed. On the whole a good thing but some reservations.
My conclusions; PB posters are well to the right of the mean......
Footnote; Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
People are equally good at identifying the 'Guardian' stories from real news as well these days.
Are you SERIOUSLY equating Guardian stories with ones in the Express?
That would be unfair on the Express.
Anyone with any sense realises that ALL media outlets have their own built in biases and agendas. They skew their stories and articles according to their political slant. It's ludicrous that intelligent posters on here still see want to believe that any newspaper or broadcaster is really anymore truthful than another. I treat Littlejohn with the same contempt as Toynbee. Both as extreme as each other, and unable to see the perspective of the other side.
All media organisations have some bias, but it's ludricous to claim they all distort the truth as much as each other. The minor distortions of the BBC are in a differen league from, say, the Express.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
But it wont feel like that as people expect them to do so poorly. That doesn't mean they will be in a good position just because they win both, but for once the excited and faux surprise at winning so handily in a safe seat that you get at by-elections will seem seem more genuine.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Surely a win would be a win. It will certainly be portrayed as such.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
But it wont feel like that as people expect them to do so poorly. That doesn't mean they will be in a good position just because they win both, but for once the excited and faux surprise at winning so handily in a safe seat that you get at by-elections will seem seem more genuine.
Morning all,
Most of the population will not notice I'm afraid to say, one way or the other.
Mr. Pubgoer, quite, but when BBC Home Editor/metropolitan numpty Mark Easton visited Cornwall for a 'discussion piece' on devolution he went to a pub and asked a small group of locals if they'd like various options. Cornish, Cornish-Devonian and South-Western Assemblies were all mooted, but there was not even a whisper of an English Parliament.
IMHO if you want to do devolution properly, England is far too big to be governed as a single unit. Split it up into 5 or 6 regions of about 10m people.
I'd love to see it happen (and government functions moved somewhere more central like Birmingham) but sadly this country is addicted to centralised control.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Nothing is done objectively any more sadly. It's all about FEELINGS.
I suspect there's something for everyone in those figures there. But for me it's not too hard to work out the balance of public opinion: people will support immigration if they have confidence overall numbers are under control, and they are in control of type and quantity.
I think that's right. But the fact that the responses to the poll - all questions on the same page in the same survey to the same people - shows that people are grappling to find a middle ground position. and are not in a "this is a crisis and extreme action is required now" mood, which is what UKIP really needs for a breakthrough.
I must have missed Scotslass breathless posting of the latest SindyRef poll which showed the inevitable march to independence continues no real change from the referendum.
As Panelbase haven't got the tables up, we'll have to take Rev (sic) Stu's word for it that the sixth question they asked on Independence wasn't preceded by anything else which might skew the result.....
Should Scotland be an Independent country (ex DK) Yes: 46 No: 54
On the EU question, when presented with 3 options:
Sindy in the EU: 37 Sindy out the EU: 11 Scotland in UK, outside EU: 43
Rev Stu adds the Sindy votes together to get a 'Sindy total' of 48. Two can play at that game - out the EU comes to 54....(which is equally rubbish...)
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
What does "on current polling" mean ? I haven't seen any poll from the actual constituency - you are extrapolating a 14-point national lead and assuming that will be manifested in Copeland - that's absurd but it's your money and your betting strategy if you've got involved.
As a good Conservative, I know you're spinning everything as good for the Government and the Prime Minister and I get that but let's hypothetically propose a poor fourth place for the Conservatives in Stoke and a modest second in Copeland with Labour increasing its majority in terms of vote share.
Not inconceivable and it wouldn't affect your Party's 14% national lead but apart from the comment about Corbyn, it wouldn't be that good for the Conservatives, would it ?
If you're going to play expectation management, let's all have a go.
Re Sun and 'texts' sent to voters, perhaps Gareth Snell is lucky in his choice of opponents, but it is getting close to I refute the rumours that my opponeent...blows goats
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Objectively, that is right. But if Labour do hold both even by a handful of votes it will definitely be portrayed by the leadership as a very good night. Diehard Corbynistas like Nick will buy that (at least in public), but others will point out it happened despite Corbyn, not because of him and that it should not have been close. It's a very big If though.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
But it wont feel like that as people expect them to do so poorly. That doesn't mean they will be in a good position just because they win both, but for once the excited and faux surprise at winning so handily in a safe seat that you get at by-elections will seem seem more genuine.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Surely a win would be a win. It will certainly be portrayed as such.
Agreed. Expectations under Corbyn are so low that any result that isn't dire can be portrayed as a triumph.
The same thing happened with last year's local and devolved elections.
Mr. Pubgoer, quite, but when BBC Home Editor/metropolitan numpty Mark Easton visited Cornwall for a 'discussion piece' on devolution he went to a pub and asked a small group of locals if they'd like various options. Cornish, Cornish-Devonian and South-Western Assemblies were all mooted, but there was not even a whisper of an English Parliament.
IMHO if you want to do devolution properly, England is far too big to be governed as a single unit. Split it up into 5 or 6 regions of about 10m people.
I'd love to see it happen (and government functions moved somewhere more central like Birmingham) but sadly this country is addicted to centralised control.
The good people of the NE rejected the idea of a devolved body in that part of the world, via a referendum. This has killed dead the idea of regional devolution for the foreseeable.
Mr. Pubgoer, quite, but when BBC Home Editor/metropolitan numpty Mark Easton visited Cornwall for a 'discussion piece' on devolution he went to a pub and asked a small group of locals if they'd like various options. Cornish, Cornish-Devonian and South-Western Assemblies were all mooted, but there was not even a whisper of an English Parliament.
IMHO if you want to do devolution properly, England is far too big to be governed as a single unit. Split it up into 5 or 6 regions of about 10m people.
I'd love to see it happen (and government functions moved somewhere more central like Birmingham) but sadly this country is addicted to centralised control.
I've always thought when we were unitarised (Shropshire) we got it badly wrong. The two optimal levels of Government would have been regional and district. That would have allowed the big ticket stuff to be managed at an optimal level, whilst the truly local stuff could have been delivered by people who understood local need. Instead we went county and parish and lost all the local knowledge that informed decisions at district level and the demands on the parish councillors from devolving services to parish level are so excessive that people don't want to do it. I'm quitting as town councillor this May after 15 years; it needs people who can devote a couple of days a week now and as someone who works full time I can't.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Objectively, that is right. But if Labour do hold both even by a handful of votes it will definitely be portrayed by the leadership as a very good night. Diehard Corbynistas like Nick will buy that (at least in public), but others will point out it happened despite Corbyn, not because of him and that it should not have been close. It's a very big If though.
Labour have to win. That's it. If they managed to defeat simultaneously the leader of UKIP and a focused Tory effort, that's a genuinely good result.
Mr. Fire, indeed. "I'm offended" has often taken the place of an argument.
Speaking of that sort of thing, Protein World's latest ad apparently faces calls for another ban for body-shaming. *sighs*
Mr. Fire (2), I disagree entirely. Carving England up and institutionalising political division within it is a recipe for disaster.
I've heard there are creatures called "sensitivity readers" who will read through author's works prior to publication, to warn them about things that could be deemed " offensive."
If we removed everything " offensive" from our bookshelves, we'd have nothing worth reading.
IMHO if you want to do devolution properly, England is far too big to be governed as a single unit. Split it up into 5 or 6 regions of about 10m people.
I don't see why England is too big, given that various provinces in China and India are larger in population.
In any case, size doesn't matter. What matters is a sense of shared identity and cohesion, fostered by history and ethnicity, and England still has that, far more than any putative regions would.
Mr. F, I did consider sending Sir Edric to 'right-on' people so they'd be deliberately offended, kick up a fuss, and me free publicity. Decided against it.
I do wonder what they'd make of the Twelve Caesars. There'd probably only be half that many left, if you removed the offensive ones.
IMHO if you want to do devolution properly, England is far too big to be governed as a single unit. Split it up into 5 or 6 regions of about 10m people.
I don't see why England is too big, given that various provinces in China and India are larger in population.
In any case, size doesn't matter. What matters is a sense of shared identity and cohesion, fostered by history and ethnicity, and England still has that, far more than any putative regions would.
Except no matter how hard you wave your little flag, the needs of say Blackburn, Torquay and Hexham are completely different and all get lost in the backwash of managing the SE's needs.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Objectively, that is right. But if Labour do hold both even by a handful of votes it will definitely be portrayed by the leadership as a very good night. Diehard Corbynistas like Nick will buy that (at least in public), but others will point out it happened despite Corbyn, not because of him and that it should not have been close. It's a very big If though.
Labour have to win. That's it. If they managed to defeat simultaneously the leader of UKIP and a focused Tory effort, that's a genuinely good result.
But, it would be like the Tories hailing by election wins in Hertsmere and Tunbridge Wells as triumphs.
Mr. Pubgoer, quite, but when BBC Home Editor/metropolitan numpty Mark Easton visited Cornwall for a 'discussion piece' on devolution he went to a pub and asked a small group of locals if they'd like various options. Cornish, Cornish-Devonian and South-Western Assemblies were all mooted, but there was not even a whisper of an English Parliament.
IMHO if you want to do devolution properly, England is far too big to be governed as a single unit. Split it up into 5 or 6 regions of about 10m people.
I'd love to see it happen (and government functions moved somewhere more central like Birmingham) but sadly this country is addicted to centralised control.
I've always thought when we were unitarised (Shropshire) we got it badly wrong. The two optimal levels of Government would have been regional and district. That would have allowed the big ticket stuff to be managed at an optimal level, whilst the truly local stuff could have been delivered by people who understood local need. Instead we went county and parish and lost all the local knowledge that informed decisions at district level and the demands on the parish councillors from devolving services to parish level are so excessive that people don't want to do it. I'm quitting as town councillor this May after 15 years; it needs people who can devote a couple of days a week now and as someone who works full time I can't.
Yay. Someone who may agree with me about what Hazel Blears did to Shropshire.
In the town where I was working much of the business done by walking down the street to the Council building vanished to a place an hour away and then handled via a faceless phone service.
Those sindy figures are still far too close for comfort in my opinion. It feels like its inevitable. Did Canada implement anything after their referendum that consolidated Quebec's position in Canada?
Unfortunately the wikipedia is quite vague on that front. It would be interesting to hear about it.
My understanding is that there's been a big push federally to include and support the French language. The cultural/language dimension was the biggest bugbear for Quebec Sovereigntists and by 'quebecifying' the rest of Canda it's somewhat neutralised the issue.
Perhaps Labour could print off A Modest Proposal as it blames Tories for measures to reduce poverty.
Labour grab the comfort blanket. Fair enough. But purely practically, electing a new Tory backbencher who can have the odd word with ministers in the division queue, is more likely to save a hospital than electing an opposition MP.
Mr. F, I did consider sending Sir Edric to 'right-on' people so they'd be deliberately offended, kick up a fuss, and me free publicity. Decided against it.
I do wonder what they'd make of the Twelve Caesars. There'd probably only be half that many left, if you removed the offensive ones.
.
Not to mention Catullus, or the Anekdota of Procopius.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Objectively, that is right. But if Labour do hold both even by a handful of votes it will definitely be portrayed by the leadership as a very good night. Diehard Corbynistas like Nick will buy that (at least in public), but others will point out it happened despite Corbyn, not because of him and that it should not have been close. It's a very big If though.
Labour have to win. That's it. If they managed to defeat simultaneously the leader of UKIP and a focused Tory effort, that's a genuinely good result.
But, it would be like the Tories hailing by election wins in Hertsmere and Tunbridge Wells as triumphs.
Not really.
The Tory majorities in Hertsmere and Tunbridge Wells were 17,000 and 23,000
The Labour majorities in Copeland and Stoke were 6,000 and 3,000.
Quite different. When you're down in the polls, winning is important. If Labour see off UKIP that's significant.
Except no matter how hard you wave your little flag, the needs of say Blackburn, Torquay and Hexham are completely different and all get lost in the backwash of managing the SE's needs.
Nobody's seriously denying that the needs of Blackburn differ from those of Hexham. But a) there would still be devolution (and perhaps there should be more of it) at the sub-national level and b) the needs of Blackburn and Torquay aren't more obviously different from each other than the needs of, say, Slough and Winchester. Or, for that matter, of the Gorbals and Thurso.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Certainly if Labour want to win the next general election they should be winning Copeland and Stoke with thumping majorities as it is if they cling on by their fingernails that may boost Corbyn but will do little to boost Labour
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Objectively, that is right. But if Labour do hold both even by a handful of votes it will definitely be portrayed by the leadership as a very good night. Diehard Corbynistas like Nick will buy that (at least in public), but others will point out it happened despite Corbyn, not because of him and that it should not have been close. It's a very big If though.
Labour have to win. That's it. If they managed to defeat simultaneously the leader of UKIP and a focused Tory effort, that's a genuinely good result.
Winning seats you have never lost in mid-term by-elections when you are the opposition is the bare minimum you'd expect. The Tories and UKIP are only competitive in Copeland and Stoke because Corbyn Labour is so weak.
You can't play expectations games both ways around. Stoke and Copeland, both safe Labour seats, cannot be a disaster if lost but a total triumph if won.
Procopius seriously over-egged the cake. Mind you, he risked death by writing it, which does suggest even if he did get a bit carried away, the sentiment he felt was genuine.
Quebec has more devolved powers than the rest of Canada though and Scotland would have to 've tested in the same way
If we follow my excellent plan of only reserving defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy to the centre, it is difficult to see what else they could have...
LOL. It seems some Tory MPs "have been surprised to learn that “the North is massive” – which has deterred some from attending."
Implies some are so thick that they can't estimate times to drive, travel by train or aircraft. Heaven help them if they have to travel to Cornwall, Cumberland, Mid and West Wales and Scotland north of the Central belt.
Very interesting podcast. For those with no time to listen.....Trump's approval ratings are tanking. He arrived with the worst figures on record and they've just got worse. There's 4/1 at Paddy Power that he'll be impeached within a year.....
On fake news....people are pretty good at separating 'Daily Express' stories from real stories and on the whole peddling nasty stories about immigrants etc doesn't work.
On PB's own poll...respondents views on immigration are mixed. On the whole a good thing but some reservations.
My conclusions; PB posters are well to the right of the mean......
Footnote; Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
People are equally good at identifying the 'Guardian' stories from real news as well these days.
Guardian and Telegraph are on a par, both have basically truthful news accounts but put their own political spin on them and the opinion pieces generally conform to the politics of the paper. The Mail & Express just lie, end of.
Perhaps Labour could print off A Modest Proposal as it blames Tories for measures to reduce poverty.
Is that a real letter from a real person? I doubt it. Why would an ordinary member of the public write an open letter like this? I would have thought it would be better to write to the DoH. No wonder the voting public are suspicious of politicians
You can't play expectations games both ways around. Stoke and Copeland, both safe Labour seats, cannot be a disaster if lost but a total triumph if won.
Yet that is what they will be. No room for nuance in these situations.
You may know it isn't a *real* disaster or triumph but that's only because you are a political geeky mcgeekface.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
Yay. Someone who may agree with me about what Hazel Blears did to Shropshire.
In the town where I was working much of the business done by walking down the street to the Council building vanished to a place an hour away and then handled via a faceless phone service.
What we have currently is a disorganised patchwork quilt of unitary and two-tier areas which defies explanation and analysis. It seems as though "larger" towns have been able to break clear of their surrounding counties and establish themselves as Unitaries.
Taking Surrey as an example, however, we have the County and the eleven districts for a population of about 1.2 million (same as Birmingham ?). The County has 81 Councillors and the Districts, let's say 35 in each so that's another 385 Councillors so 466 elected Councillors for a population of 1.2 million - Birmingham has 120 Councillors or so.
You also have the ludicrous cross over of functions - if you get old, you go to a County run care home and when you die you register it with the County Registrar but then get buried in a District run cemetery. You get your Blue Badge from the County but the enforcement is with the Districts.
Given the advances in back office technology, it's perfectly possible for Unitary authorities to run everything - as to whether Surrey should be a single Unitary or split up as happened with Cheshire, that's a matter for someone else.
The transition costs would be large but the potential savings, I would argue, over a 5-10 year period would be considerable both in terms of property rationalisation and consolidation of function. Perhaps Conservatives would like to explain why they are such fans of the two-tier local Government system and why it's necessary for an area like Surrey to have 450 County and District Councillors (most of whom, I might add, are Conservative) ?
Following on from my post the other day, it's looking increasingly likely that the Trump administration is going to accelerate America's return to the Moon. Or at least an Apollo 8-style orbit the moon and back scheme.
Basically, this would involve changing the planned EM-1 mission (scheduled for 2018) into a manned launch.
There are various risks to this. The rocket it will be launching on is untested (although the first Shuttle flight was also manned and untested). The Orion capsule the men will be in is delayed, largely untested, and lacking various life-support systems.
On one hand, it will be pointless to put a crew on the mission: no real science will be done, unlike on a landing (which is not currently planned or scheduled). On the other hand, it will take man outside Low Earth Orbit for the first time in forty years, and will test systems.
So is it a risky attempt at a legacy by Trump; a much-needed kick up the backside for NASA, or a valid step into mankind's future?
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Objectively, that is right. But if Labour do hold both even by a handful of votes it will definitely be portrayed by the leadership as a very good night. Diehard Corbynistas like Nick will buy that (at least in public), but others will point out it happened despite Corbyn, not because of him and that it should not have been close. It's a very big If though.
Labour have to win. That's it. If they managed to defeat simultaneously the leader of UKIP and a focused Tory effort, that's a genuinely good result.
But, it would be like the Tories hailing by election wins in Hertsmere and Tunbridge Wells as triumphs.
Not really.
The Tory majorities in Hertsmere and Tunbridge Wells were 17,000 and 23,000
The Labour majorities in Copeland and Stoke were 6,000 and 3,000.
Quite different. When you're down in the polls, winning is important. If Labour see off UKIP that's significant.
If UKIP can't win in Stoke then it's hard to see where they can win, that is certainly true. But opposition parties should never come close to losing to parties in government when defending their own seats in by-elections.
Wondering if there are any limits on what we are prepared to blame foreigners for and whether one day we'll take responsibility and fix our own problems.
You are wrong to point the finger at foreigners. We blame you lefties, who in turn accelerated immigration to "rub our noses in it".
The right sure like to find scapegoats and blame, whilst ironically preaching personal responsibility for others.
You're not a scapegoat when it is your fault.
The left have been out of power 7 years now and we will soon be out of the EU - soon be nobody to blame but yourselves, but it will never happen. The list of people to blame for a failed Brexit will rival War and Peace as a tome but will strangely omit the people who caused it to happen.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Britain was lucky to have Churchill, who was interested in science, as our wartime PM. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38985425 Reportedly he personally supported code breaking, radar and the bouncing bomb. Maybe a few more science graduates in the House of Commons wouldn't come amiss and fewer like Owen Patterson and David Tredinnick.
I think there's more to the story than that. Hitler was also fairly interested in science, hence Germany's development of the super weapons, the jet engine and radar.
Yet Churchill was also the father of the tank in WW1, and Churchill sponsored the trenching machine Cultivator (i.e. Nellie) at the beginning of WW2.
Was it simply the fact that we had American help, or was Churchill more canny than Hitler in choosing projects to go ahead?
I think it was simply that by the time the ME272 and V1 rockets were around, it was clear the war was already lost so there was nothing for Germany to lose. Conversely, as after 1943 it was when, rather than whether, the allies would win meant that it was better to concentrate on those things that would ultimately win them the war as there was nothing much to gain by gambling.
The fact Hitler was also batpoo crazy about such things - in 1945 he believed someone who said they had invented a workable death ray, and ordered Speer to put it into production (which stopped abruptly when Speer pointed out that it was loosely based on a design from H G Wells and featured various components that never existed) - was I think a minor aside.
There was also a belief that they would defeat their enemies by 1942 so emphasis was placed on current production over future development. 1943 saw the increasing obsolescence of their Air Force and the hunt for wonder weapons which would have an immediate and decisive effect. The only weapon which I can reasonably think did this was the atomic bomb. Absent that military improvement has largely been evolution rather than revolution.
Hmmm.
Was it that Churchill had genuinely far wider experience of life and people than Hitler?
Churchill was a Government Minister while Hitler was a Corporal, despite being less than 15 years apart in age.
Hitler's interest in science was not balanced, but was that of the megalomaniac. He used his detailed knowledge of narrow areas (eg WW1 artillery) to win narrow points, and then went outside his 3mm wide area of expertise to apply madness to wider areas.
Churchill was a good judge of his on limitations, perhaps, and at listening to experts and judging when ground level opinion needs to be applied.
I guess that a lot of them haven't really thought about it prior to doing that poll/survey. Send them back to censor their own social media accounts and I guess that they would suddenly embrace free speech.
You can't play expectations games both ways around. Stoke and Copeland, both safe Labour seats, cannot be a disaster if lost but a total triumph if won.
Presumably Conservatives will brush off fourth place in Stoke and a failure to win Copeland as irrelevant as well.
You can't play expectations games both ways around. Stoke and Copeland, both safe Labour seats, cannot be a disaster if lost but a total triumph if won.
Presumably Conservatives will brush off fourth place in Stoke and a failure to win Copeland as irrelevant as well.
Perhaps Labour could print off A Modest Proposal as it blames Tories for measures to reduce poverty.
What are the odds it emerges today the author of the letter is a fictional construct loosely based on a trueish story?
Written by Gareth from Hampstead, or emailed by Chris in Workington.
If this turns out to be fake news then it could play badly for Labour nationally.
Jennifer's Ear redux.
Neither the phone book nor the google know of anyone called Townsley in Copeland.
So should Labour preface the letter with a statement along the lines of 'this letter was created by one of our spin doctors to raise awareness of an issue that isn't formal government policy'
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
What's the point of free speech if you have nothing to say? All he matters now it appears, is being nice to people. To be honest I think the biggest problem is that our young have no real conception of what it is like NOT to have free speech. We've taken support for these things for granted.
As for anti-male expressions of discrimination, just look at custody battles, criminal sentences, conviction rates, disproportionate spending on domestic abuse victims, the way the media's forgotten hundreds of male victims of the Rotherham disgrace, the frequent low level contempt displayed towards men on TV (adverts etc - it's so simple even Dad can do it).
Also, the idea a white man doesn't get to think hate speech is broadly defined because he's not likely to be a victim of it is indefensible. Do I have to be a woman to have a view on maternity ward provision? Or gay to have a view on gay marriage? Or a Pastafarian to have a view on the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by His Noodley Appendage)?
Defining people by their demographics and giving their views more or less weight based on the boxes they tick is utter nonsense.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
I said Powell speech was inspired by pre partitioned India, not about it
"Peter Brooke’s research finds Powell echoing this imperialist rationale in Delhi in 1945, when he noted that each Indian party was dominated by a communal group — Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Untouchable and other minorities. Powell concluded that ‘communalism’ ruled out self-government for India in the foreseeable future because individuals would not behave as rational voters or accept majority decisions if they were in a minority. For Powell, India’s bloodbath and America’s race riots confirmed where communalism led. This nightmare was the real source of his ‘rivers of blood’ speech."
Yay. Someone who may agree with me about what Hazel Blears did to Shropshire.
In the town where I was working much of the business done by walking down the street to the Council building vanished to a place an hour away and then handled via a faceless phone service.
What we have currently is a disorganised patchwork quilt of unitary and two-tier areas which defies explanation and analysis. It seems as though "larger" towns have been able to break clear of their surrounding counties and establish themselves as Unitaries.
Taking Surrey as an example, however, we have the County and the eleven districts for a population of about 1.2 million (same as Birmingham ?). The County has 81 Councillors and the Districts, let's say 35 in each so that's another 385 Councillors so 466 elected Councillors for a population of 1.2 million - Birmingham has 120 Councillors or so.
You also have the ludicrous cross over of functions - if you get old, you go to a County run care home and when you die you register it with the County Registrar but then get buried in a District run cemetery. You get your Blue Badge from the County but the enforcement is with the Districts.
Given the advances in back office technology, it's perfectly possible for Unitary authorities to run everything - as to whether Surrey should be a single Unitary or split up as happened with Cheshire, that's a matter for someone else.
The transition costs would be large but the potential savings, I would argue, over a 5-10 year period would be considerable both in terms of property rationalisation and consolidation of function. Perhaps Conservatives would like to explain why they are such fans of the two-tier local Government system and why it's necessary for an area like Surrey to have 450 County and District Councillors (most of whom, I might add, are Conservative) ?
I suspect that they were thinking that yet another turn on the change-go-round was a little futile. People learn to work with it. Stable anomalies are better than a constant Hamster Wheel of buggeration.
You can't play expectations games both ways around. Stoke and Copeland, both safe Labour seats, cannot be a disaster if lost but a total triumph if won.
Agreed. I think you are underestimating how conflicted some Labour sympathisers are about these 2 by-elections. 2 losses will almost certainly finish Corbyn off so there would be a very real silver lining for some of us. Personally I would like to see a loss in Copeland but an comfortable win over UKIP in Stoke. As long as Corbyn goes within a year Labour will have a good chance of stabilising the situation.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
I think political campaigning is like a first world war naval battle. You can see all the chaos, wreckage and death caused by the enemy's shells hitting your own ship while they are sailing serenely in the distance with no indication that anything is wrong. They on the other hand, have no idea of your problems but and are preoccupied desperately trying to sort out their own.
As has been noted, One thing corbyn is great at, unintentionally, is expectations management. When labour hold Copeland and stoke he'll do the usual thing where oppositions talk of how it shows the country is against the government, even if it is the safest seat in the country, and it'll for once get some credence since Tory prospects have been talked up so much. For stoke ehen they win big rather than win small the same effect will occur,
On current polling Copeland is neck and neck, even if Labour hold it they will likely see a reduced majority so Corbyn cannot crow too much and I doubt Tories will be too concerned if he holds it as it cements his position and even less so if he holds Stoke
Objectively, anything other than increased Labour majorities (at least in percentage terms) would be poor results for them.
Objectively, that is right. But if Labour do hold both even by a handful of votes it will definitely be portrayed by the leadership as a very good night. Diehard Corbynistas like Nick will buy that (at least in public), but others will point out it happened despite Corbyn, not because of him and that it should not have been close. It's a very big If though.
Labour have to win. That's it. If they managed to defeat simultaneously the leader of UKIP and a focused Tory effort, that's a genuinely good result.
But, it would be like the Tories hailing by election wins in Hertsmere and Tunbridge Wells as triumphs.
Not really.
The Tory majorities in Hertsmere and Tunbridge Wells were 17,000 and 23,000
The Labour majorities in Copeland and Stoke were 6,000 and 3,000.
Quite different. When you're down in the polls, winning is important. If Labour see off UKIP that's significant.
If UKIP can't win in Stoke then it's hard to see where they can win, that is certainly true. But opposition parties should never come close to losing to parties in government when defending their own seats in by-elections.
The seats weren't very safe at the 2015 GE and Labour have had reverses since then in the polls. According to the national numbers they might expect to lose both.
In that context, if they manage to hold them that's a good result. It won't win the the GE, but it's a start to get into the winning habit.
A loss would be significant. So a win has to be significant too.
Very interesting podcast. For those with no time to listen.....Trump's approval ratings are tanking. He arrived with the worst figures on record and they've just got worse. There's 4/1 at Paddy Power that he'll be impeached within a year.....
On fake news....people are pretty good at separating 'Daily Express' stories from real stories and on the whole peddling nasty stories about immigrants etc doesn't work.
On PB's own poll...respondents views on immigration are mixed. On the whole a good thing but some reservations.
My conclusions; PB posters are well to the right of the mean......
Footnote; Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
People are equally good at identifying the 'Guardian' stories from real news as well these days.
Guardian and Telegraph are on a par, both have basically truthful news accounts but put their own political spin on them and the opinion pieces generally conform to the politics of the paper. The Mail & Express just lie, end of.
The Express is junk. I don't understand how it still exists. Why would anyone choose to read it over the Daily Mail if you are that way inclined?
The real question over which is worse is between the Sun and the Mail!
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
They are idiots, but writing those 3 words is probably a hate crime according to our local police.
What would your suggested wording be?
What would your wording be?
There are two parts to the problem here. One is that no credible evidence is required for the police to assume a Hate Crime. The other is that the definition panders to tenuous claims and makes them concrete.
I would have something based more on things that have happened and been investigated and eg checked for double counting, rather than raw allegations based on blind assumptions about other people. This definition says a "hate crime" has occurred if a person earwigs a random conversation at a bus stop and doesn't like the opinions discussed.
Peering inside someone's head to claim that you know what their mindset is is no more credible than peering inside someone's head and assuming all Muslims want to be paedophiles or similar.
It is analagous to the excessive numbers of Human Trafficking victims who the police conjured out of thin air for years.
I think political campaigning is like a first world war naval battle. You can see all the chaos, wreckage and death caused by the enemy's shells hitting your own ship while they are sailing serenely in the distance with no indication that anything is wrong. They on the other hand, have no idea of your problems but and are preoccupied desperately trying to sort out their own.
I rather like that analogy. It certainly chimes with my experiences.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
They are idiots, but writing those 3 words is probably a hate crime according to our local police.
What would your suggested wording be?
Wording that doesn't suggest that a hate crime is something that "may or may not constitute a criminal offence". Surely it has to constitute a criminal offence, or no crime has actually been committed?
As for anti-male expressions of discrimination, just look at custody battles, criminal sentences, conviction rates, disproportionate spending on domestic abuse victims, the way the media's forgotten hundreds of male victims of the Rotherham disgrace, the frequent low level contempt displayed towards men on TV (adverts etc - it's so simple even Dad can do it).
Also, the idea a white man doesn't get to think hate speech is broadly defined because he's not likely to be a victim of it is indefensible. Do I have to be a woman to have a view on maternity ward provision? Or gay to have a view on gay marriage? Or a Pastafarian to have a view on the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by His Noodley Appendage)?
Defining people by their demographics and giving their views more or less weight based on the boxes they tick is utter nonsense.
/endrant
I believe you and I are in general agreement about the way men are discriminated against in some aspects - the concentration on female victims of domestic abuse being one example.
"Defining people by their demographics and giving their views more or less weight based on the boxes they tick is utter nonsense."
The problem is that some demographics do have problems with crimes being committed against them. A Pakistani, Jew or Chinese man (for examples of ethnicity and religions) being called by a derogatory name probably wouldn't bother them once. When it happens time and time again it does alter the way they perceive the world about them. It acts as another divide and a barrier; it accentuates 'them' and 'us'.
It'd be nice if such groups were not targeted by scum (*). But they are. We can choose to allow that to happen, or try to protect them with the law. However the law does need to be sanely applied, and the law should not be afraid of telling complainants that the accused has no case to answer at an early stage.
The problem isn't with the person who is targeted by hateful speech; it is with the person doing the speech. If you can think of a better way of targeting that person and changing their behaviour, feel free.
Anyway, I'm off to a softplay. BTW, that doesn't mean a padded cell.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
Very interesting podcast. For those with no time to listen.....Trump's approval ratings are tanking. He arrived with the worst figures on record and they've just got worse. There's 4/1 at Paddy Power that he'll be impeached within a year.....
On fake news....people are pretty good at separating 'Daily Express' stories from real stories and on the whole peddling nasty stories about immigrants etc doesn't work.
On PB's own poll...respondents views on immigration are mixed. On the whole a good thing but some reservations.
My conclusions; PB posters are well to the right of the mean......
Footnote; Corbyn will never be Prime Minister.
People are equally good at identifying the 'Guardian' stories from real news as well these days.
Guardian and Telegraph are on a par, both have basically truthful news accounts but put their own political spin on them and the opinion pieces generally conform to the politics of the paper. The Mail & Express just lie, end of.
The Express is junk. I don't understand how it still exists. Why would anyone choose to read it over the Daily Mail if you are that way inclined?
The real question over which is worse is between the Sun and the Mail!
I regard both as comics and read them with that in mind - amusement only
This "If Ukip can't win in Stoke, they can't win anywhere" theme is missing the point. While HMS Brexit is sailing serenely on, Ukip probably will struggle to win anywhere.
As long as we're leaving, their main thrust has been negated. Only the anti-democratic Remainers are fired up enough to vote. Hence the relative success of the Yellow Peril.
If the HoL does play silly biggers, things may change rapidly.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
They are idiots, but writing those 3 words is probably a hate crime according to our local police.
What would your suggested wording be?
My suggestion would be crime or not crime. Perhaps we could have further categories -idiot crime for attempting to steal metal from substations perhaps.
Judgement of crime should be emotionally neutral. If somebody has attacked somebody else that is assault or incarnations various. That should be enough.
Miss Plato, not surprised, sadly. There's pressure for (self-)censorship from the religious, from government curtailing free speech by the ridiculously broad definition of hate speech, and from the terminally over-sensitive.
It's pathetic.
"ridiculously broad definition of hate speech"
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Definitions of hate crime *are* ridiculously broad. Here is our local one from Nottinghamshire:
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4227022/Unpopular-Jeremy-Corbyn-stays-away-Copeland.html#ixzz4YphtOrjU
Article adorned with bar charts, lovely, lovely bar charts highlighting some grim news for Corbyn, but Friday next week might be more interesting to watch the impact.
What time might the declaration times be for Copeland and Stoke Central?
I recall even guido essentially telling my fellow brexiters to calm down and not overreact following the high court ruling, which certainly speaks to something.
It panders to peoples worst prejudices.
Foreign Office
"The Gambia is going to be rejoining The Commonwealth."
Foreign Secretary @BorisJohnson meets President @adama_barrow in Banjul https://t.co/w86KJ5TU83
But who can forgive them shutting down the Sunday Mirror throwing hundreds out of work on the basis of a lie?
Oh no, that was the Guardian and the News of the World....
And it can be done quite cheaply.
It's a far more apt description for Corbyn's Labour.
Most of the population will not notice I'm afraid to say, one way or the other.
I'd love to see it happen (and government functions moved somewhere more central like Birmingham) but sadly this country is addicted to centralised control.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/02/copeland-byelection-tory-ground-campaign-problems.html
Speaking of that sort of thing, Protein World's latest ad apparently faces calls for another ban for body-shaming. *sighs*
Mr. Fire (2), I disagree entirely. Carving England up and institutionalising political division within it is a recipe for disaster.
"Poll: Majority back independent Scotland ‘in or out of EU’"
http://tinyurl.com/hcw3lt5
As a good Conservative, I know you're spinning everything as good for the Government and the Prime Minister and I get that but let's hypothetically propose a poor fourth place for the Conservatives in Stoke and a modest second in Copeland with Labour increasing its majority in terms of vote share.
Not inconceivable and it wouldn't affect your Party's 14% national lead but apart from the comment about Corbyn, it wouldn't be that good for the Conservatives, would it ?
If you're going to play expectation management, let's all have a go.
http://www.nmrn-portsmouth.org.uk/sites/default/files/Habbakkuk.pdf
Re Sun and 'texts' sent to voters, perhaps Gareth Snell is lucky in his choice of opponents, but it is getting close to I refute the rumours that my opponeent...blows goats
Brendan O'Neill on why the political class can't stop talking about 'fascism'
https://t.co/MQ5V0jWrS2 https://t.co/443DUn3ulC
The same thing happened with last year's local and devolved elections.
If we removed everything " offensive" from our bookshelves, we'd have nothing worth reading.
In any case, size doesn't matter. What matters is a sense of shared identity and cohesion, fostered by history and ethnicity, and England still has that, far more than any putative regions would.
I do wonder what they'd make of the Twelve Caesars. There'd probably only be half that many left, if you removed the offensive ones.
Mr. Fishing, indeed.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/832149706369331200/photo/1
Perhaps Labour could print off A Modest Proposal as it blames Tories for measures to reduce poverty.
In the town where I was working much of the business done by walking down the street to the Council building vanished to a place an hour away and then handled via a faceless phone service.
The Tory majorities in Hertsmere and Tunbridge Wells were 17,000 and 23,000
The Labour majorities in Copeland and Stoke were 6,000 and 3,000.
Quite different. When you're down in the polls, winning is important. If Labour see off UKIP that's significant.
You can't play expectations games both ways around. Stoke and Copeland, both safe Labour seats, cannot be a disaster if lost but a total triumph if won.
Procopius seriously over-egged the cake. Mind you, he risked death by writing it, which does suggest even if he did get a bit carried away, the sentiment he felt was genuine.
Yikes. Majority of 18-21 year olds do not support free speech. https://t.co/Rl4mQrbNnl
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-10?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/youngpeopleandfreespeech
You may know it isn't a *real* disaster or triumph but that's only because you are a political geeky mcgeekface.
It's pathetic.
Taking Surrey as an example, however, we have the County and the eleven districts for a population of about 1.2 million (same as Birmingham ?). The County has 81 Councillors and the Districts, let's say 35 in each so that's another 385 Councillors so 466 elected Councillors for a population of 1.2 million - Birmingham has 120 Councillors or so.
You also have the ludicrous cross over of functions - if you get old, you go to a County run care home and when you die you register it with the County Registrar but then get buried in a District run cemetery. You get your Blue Badge from the County but the enforcement is with the Districts.
Given the advances in back office technology, it's perfectly possible for Unitary authorities to run everything - as to whether Surrey should be a single Unitary or split up as happened with Cheshire, that's a matter for someone else.
The transition costs would be large but the potential savings, I would argue, over a 5-10 year period would be considerable both in terms of property rationalisation and consolidation of function. Perhaps Conservatives would like to explain why they are such fans of the two-tier local Government system and why it's necessary for an area like Surrey to have 450 County and District Councillors (most of whom, I might add, are Conservative) ?
Following on from my post the other day, it's looking increasingly likely that the Trump administration is going to accelerate America's return to the Moon. Or at least an Apollo 8-style orbit the moon and back scheme.
https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/02/nasa-looking-to-accelerate-first-crewed-orion-launch-to-as-early-as-2019/
Basically, this would involve changing the planned EM-1 mission (scheduled for 2018) into a manned launch.
There are various risks to this. The rocket it will be launching on is untested (although the first Shuttle flight was also manned and untested). The Orion capsule the men will be in is delayed, largely untested, and lacking various life-support systems.
On one hand, it will be pointless to put a crew on the mission: no real science will be done, unlike on a landing (which is not currently planned or scheduled). On the other hand, it will take man outside Low Earth Orbit for the first time in forty years, and will test systems.
So is it a risky attempt at a legacy by Trump; a much-needed kick up the backside for NASA, or a valid step into mankind's future?
The left have been out of power 7 years now and we will soon be out of the EU - soon be nobody to blame but yourselves, but it will never happen. The list of people to blame for a failed Brexit will rival War and Peace as a tome but will strangely omit the people who caused it to happen.
Neither the phone book nor the google know of anyone called Townsley in Copeland.
From your perspective. Then again, you're not a member of a group likely to encounter much hate speech (aside from being a Yorkshireman, that is)
Was it that Churchill had genuinely far wider experience of life and people than Hitler?
Churchill was a Government Minister while Hitler was a Corporal, despite being less than 15 years apart in age.
Hitler's interest in science was not balanced, but was that of the megalomaniac. He used his detailed knowledge of narrow areas (eg WW1 artillery) to win narrow points, and then went outside his 3mm wide area of expertise to apply madness to wider areas.
Churchill was a good judge of his on limitations, perhaps, and at listening to experts and judging when ground level opinion needs to be applied.
Send them back to censor their own social media accounts and I guess that they would suddenly embrace free speech.
Next.
"Nottinghamshire Police describes hate
crime as “any incident, which may or may
not constitute a criminal offence, which is
perceived by the victim or any other person,
as being motivated by prejudice or hate”."
http://nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/documents/files/NottsHateStrategy.pdf
They are idiots to adopt such a crazy definition, but writing those words is probably a hate crime according to our local police.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuOGf1iuLEA
As for anti-male expressions of discrimination, just look at custody battles, criminal sentences, conviction rates, disproportionate spending on domestic abuse victims, the way the media's forgotten hundreds of male victims of the Rotherham disgrace, the frequent low level contempt displayed towards men on TV (adverts etc - it's so simple even Dad can do it).
Also, the idea a white man doesn't get to think hate speech is broadly defined because he's not likely to be a victim of it is indefensible. Do I have to be a woman to have a view on maternity ward provision? Or gay to have a view on gay marriage? Or a Pastafarian to have a view on the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by His Noodley Appendage)?
Defining people by their demographics and giving their views more or less weight based on the boxes they tick is utter nonsense.
/endrant
I said Powell speech was inspired by pre partitioned India, not about it
"Peter Brooke’s research finds Powell echoing this imperialist rationale in Delhi in 1945, when he noted that each Indian party was dominated by a communal group — Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Untouchable and other minorities. Powell concluded that ‘communalism’ ruled out self-government for India in the foreseeable future because individuals would not behave as rational voters or accept majority decisions if they were in a minority.
For Powell, India’s bloodbath and America’s race riots confirmed where communalism led. This nightmare was the real source of his ‘rivers of blood’ speech."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/02/the-real-tributaries-of-enochandx2019s-andx2018rivers-of-bloodandx2019/
Guido
https://order-order.com/2017/02/16/bercows-freebies-for-access/
In that context, if they manage to hold them that's a good result. It won't win the the GE, but it's a start to get into the winning habit.
A loss would be significant. So a win has to be significant too.
The real question over which is worse is between the Sun and the Mail!
There are two parts to the problem here. One is that no credible evidence is required for the police to assume a Hate Crime. The other is that the definition panders to tenuous claims and makes them concrete.
I would have something based more on things that have happened and been investigated and eg checked for double counting, rather than raw allegations based on blind assumptions about other people. This definition says a "hate crime" has occurred if a person earwigs a random conversation at a bus stop and doesn't like the opinions discussed.
Peering inside someone's head to claim that you know what their mindset is is no more credible than peering inside someone's head and assuming all Muslims want to be paedophiles or similar.
It is analagous to the excessive numbers of Human Trafficking victims who the police conjured out of thin air for years.
But what do you do about people like Abu Hamza?
I think it's obvious they shouldnt be allowed to call for violence... But that does contradict a right to free speech.
"Defining people by their demographics and giving their views more or less weight based on the boxes they tick is utter nonsense."
The problem is that some demographics do have problems with crimes being committed against them. A Pakistani, Jew or Chinese man (for examples of ethnicity and religions) being called by a derogatory name probably wouldn't bother them once. When it happens time and time again it does alter the way they perceive the world about them. It acts as another divide and a barrier; it accentuates 'them' and 'us'.
It'd be nice if such groups were not targeted by scum (*). But they are. We can choose to allow that to happen, or try to protect them with the law. However the law does need to be sanely applied, and the law should not be afraid of telling complainants that the accused has no case to answer at an early stage.
The problem isn't with the person who is targeted by hateful speech; it is with the person doing the speech. If you can think of a better way of targeting that person and changing their behaviour, feel free.
Anyway, I'm off to a softplay. BTW, that doesn't mean a padded cell.
(*) oooh hate speech.
As long as we're leaving, their main thrust has been negated. Only the anti-democratic Remainers are fired up enough to vote. Hence the relative success of the Yellow Peril.
If the HoL does play silly biggers, things may change rapidly.
Judgement of crime should be emotionally neutral. If somebody has attacked somebody else that is assault or incarnations various. That should be enough.