Pulpstar asked: "Whats the advice here ? Sell Tories at 393.5 ?"
That's very much the view I'm taking, but as ever DYOR.
Bet 365 398.5
Wow, that equates to a Tory majority of 147 - a couple of days ago we were told by Prof. Curtice that for the Tories to gain a majority of more than 90 would prove very difficult on account of Labour's entrenched levels of support in its heartlands. It looks like someone is going to be proved very wrong on this. Also to gain a majority of this magnitude does rather suggest that the number of seats the LibDems are set to win back from the Tories is likely to be limited, probably to single figures.
Polling suggests Labours entrenched support in its heartland is no longer there.
I think we're in uncharted territory here, aren't we? Curtice could turn out to be right. We really don't know how badly Labour's support is going to flake off, or how much of the Ukip vote might eventually migrate to the Tories. And we certainly don't know what effect events could have.
I don't see how the Conservatives won't come out of this with a comfortable working majority, but the final numbers are anybody's guess!
What is Labour's firewall, now?
1. Very deprived constituencies, eg much of Merseyside, rough bits of London and other big cities. I'm sure they'll hold firm.
2. Constituencies with many Black voters and Muslim voters (overlapping to an extent with 1). There's no burning issue to make them switch.
3. Constituencies with many Left wing professionals and middle class voters. Some will switch to the Lib Dems over Brexit, but in most cases, the Lib Dems will be starting from a long way behind, and most Labour MP's in such seats are Remainers. In most cases, the Lib Dems will be getting decent vote shares, rather than being serious challengers.
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
Just because Christianity wasn't stamped out doesn't mean a lot of other things haven't been over the millennia. Christians managed to stamp out a lot of other belief systems once they were in the ascendancy for instance.
As mentioned in response to Andy, I am talking about policies and ways of changing behaviours that I would be happy implementing myself, or having others implement in my community. Measures that hold true to my value system. I am ruling out genocide and other extreme measures.
I would hope that you would be happy to see people who cause grievous bodily harm to children prosecuted. Or is that outside your value system.
There are no reliable population rates over time, but we do know that rates in second generation migrants are much lower than in first generation. Rates are also lower in more educated migrants.
There is always a tabloid "string em up" culture over child protection issues, but experience has not always been that removing children from substandard parents is the best way forward. The legions of children in care abused by staff or trafficked into prostitution tell us that.
But the beauty of an effective screening program is, there's no one to string up because the practice is killed stone dead.
What is your budgetary plan to finance this massive targetting of police and childcare resources? It is encouraging to hear PB rightwingers advocating investment in public services for women and ethnic minorities.
Are you pretending to think I don't really mind about women being forcibly mutilated because they are women, or from ethnic minorities? A peculiarly silly suggestion. And why would there be a police involvement in a screening for physical evidence of genital mutilation?
'A French mayor has threatened to quit because he doesn't want to 'dedicate his life to a***holes' after his town voted for Marine Le Pen as president. Daniel Delomez described the results in Annezin, northern France, as 'catastrophic' after 38 per cent of voters backed the National Front candidate in the first round of the presidential election.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4439672/French-mayor-brands-voters-holes-backing-Le-Pen.html
It's a horrendous idea, it's just utterly disgraceful.
Why?
Targeting ethnic and religious groups for invasive medical exams. Seriously, that is wrong in almost every way imaginable.
What if there is a problem that is specific to a religious or ethnic group?
So we make an entire generation of girls from particular groups victims of the state to catch the occasional one who has been the victim of barbaric practices. It's an utter abomination of an idea.
Let's work in the real world please. How would you stop this abominable practice?
This proposal fails the smell test. We need to prevent FGM and I don't know how exactly to do this, I'm not an expert on this issue. I just have a big problem with the optics of the approach of subjecting young girls to invasive examinations in this way.
So your not offending your sensibilities is more important than the safety and health of young girls?
A very selfish view, but a sadly one common among liberal types who want to ignore the problems rather than confront them head on, come what may.
I'm probably with ToryJim on this. The objective must be to stop FGM and protect children in those communities. But you don't achieve that by legislation and policing, you do it by changing the culture of the community, which means you need not just their cooperation, but their ownership of the issue.
Highly recommend the book 'The Power of Positive Deviance', which records, inter alia, how some Westerners engaged local communities in Egypt to rid the practice of FGM in many villages.
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
The Chinese wiped out foot-binding in just a few years because they were determined to stop it.
It's amazing. I think of myself as fairly right wing (particularly on economic, finance and defence issues), but I am constantly gobsmacked by how far to the right of me many on PB are! What, you want us to be China!!!!???
I hear genocide is pretty good at wiping out practices you don't like also.
I really liked your earlier post, Tim, and well done for posting it. But is it a left-wing/right-wing thing? Isn't it just simply that some have a sensible idea of how to deal with these issues, others don't?
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
Just because Christianity wasn't stamped out doesn't mean a lot of other things haven't been over the millennia. Christians managed to stamp out a lot of other belief systems once they were in the ascendancy for instance.
As mentioned in response to Andy, I am talking about policies and ways of changing behaviours that I would be happy implementing myself, or having others implement in my community. Measures that hold true to my value system. I am ruling out genocide and other extreme measures.
I would hope that you would be happy to see people who cause grievous bodily harm to children prosecuted. Or is that outside your value system.
I would, but my whole point is that reliance solely on legislation and prosecution will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. What it will do is push it underground further.
WRT the Remain target list, not only must the constituency be pro-Remain, there must also be a credible challenger. I think that only Kingston & Surbiton and Twickenham meet these criteria.
It's a horrendous idea, it's just utterly disgraceful.
Why?
Targeting ethnic and religious groups for invasive medical exams. Seriously, that is wrong in almost every way imaginable.
What if there is a problem that is specific to a religious or ethnic group?
So we make an entire generation of girls from particular groups victims of the state to catch the occasional one who has been the victim of barbaric practices. It's an utter abomination of an idea.
Let's work in the real world please. How would you stop this abominable practice?
This proposal fails the smell test. We need to prevent FGM and I don't know how exactly to do this, I'm not an expert on this issue. I just have a big problem with the optics of the approach of subjecting young girls to invasive examinations in this way.
So your not offending your sensibilities is more important than the safety and health of young girls?
A very selfish view, but a sadly one common among liberal types who want to ignore the problems rather than confront them head on, come what may.
I'm probably with ToryJim on this. The objective must be to stop FGM and protect children in those communities. But you don't achieve that by legislation and policing, you do it by changing the culture of the community, which means you need not just their cooperation, but their ownership of the issue.
Highly recommend the book 'The Power of Positive Deviance', which records, inter alia, how some Westerners engaged local communities in Egypt to rid the practice of FGM in many villages.
We've been trying to integrate Islamic immigrants to the UK for 40 years. What changes will be required to make a success of the policy instead of our current failure of a policy.
Life in prison would be a good start.
castration might be more poetic
Yes, but it doesn't stop them reoffending.
Seriously - I don't think that mutilating children's gentials = life imprisonment should be a contentious issue.
It's a horrendous idea, it's just utterly disgraceful.
Why?
Targeting ethnic and religious groups for invasive medical exams. Seriously, that is wrong in almost every way imaginable.
What if there is a problem that is specific to a religious or ethnic group?
So we make an entire generation of girls from particular groups victims of the state to catch the occasional one who has been the victim of barbaric practices. It's an utter abomination of an idea.
Let's work in the real world please. How would you stop this abominable practice?
This proposal fails the smell test. We need to prevent FGM and I don't know how exactly to do this, I'm not an expert on this issue. I just have a big problem with the optics of the approach of subjecting young girls to invasive examinations in this way.
So your not offending your sensibilities is more important than the safety and health of young girls?
A very selfish view, but a sadly one common among liberal types who want to ignore the problems rather than confront them head on, come what may.
I'm probably with ToryJim on this. The objective must be to stop FGM and protect children in those communities. But you don't achieve that by legislation and policing, you do it by changing the culture of the community, which means you need not just their cooperation, but their ownership of the issue.
Highly recommend the book 'The Power of Positive Deviance', which records, inter alia, how some Westerners engaged local communities in Egypt to rid the practice of FGM in many villages.
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
And just before I go, what is Kezia on? Did it really escape SLAB's attention that it was the SNP that took 40 of their Scottish seats just 2 years ago, not the hated Tories? The idea that Labour can get elected in Scotland (as they were for 20 years or more) simply to keep the Tories out is bizarre. When are they going to realise that their fight is actually with the SNP who are completely destroying them?
It is the SNP who are going to take 150 of their Council seats next month as well. At least try to fight them before its too late, for goodness sake.
In the days of vinyl records, they sometimes got scratched which resulted in endless repeats of the same phrase of music.
Simply banning a practice does not work....Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
I agree with you, but it's not a either/or: you can do both. Treat it like a communicable disease and do the epidemiology: compulsory notification by GPs, compulsory follow-up, make the parents responsible for the child, jail sentences for noncompliance. ignorance no defence. We have wellpracticed procedures for disease tracking and control, god knows how many GPs, nurses and social services, and cops in every village. It's doable.
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
Just because Christianity wasn't stamped out doesn't mean a lot of other things haven't been over the millennia. Christians managed to stamp out a lot of other belief systems once they were in the ascendancy for instance.
As mentioned in response to Andy, I am talking about policies and ways of changing behaviours that I would be happy implementing myself, or having others implement in my community. Measures that hold true to my value system. I am ruling out genocide and other extreme measures.
I would hope that you would be happy to see people who cause grievous bodily harm to children prosecuted. Or is that outside your value system.
Pulpstar asked: "Whats the advice here ? Sell Tories at 393.5 ?"
That's very much the view I'm taking, but as ever DYOR.
Bet 365 398.5
Wow, that equates to a Tory majority of 147 - a couple of days ago we were told by Prof. Curtice that for the Tories to gain a majority of more than 90 would prove very difficult on account of Labour's entrenched levels of support in its heartlands. It looks like someone is going to be proved very wrong on this. Also to gain a majority of this magnitude does rather suggest that the number of seats the LibDems are set to win back from the Tories is likely to be limited, probably to single figures.
Polling suggests Labours entrenched support in its heartland is no longer there.
I think we're in uncharted territory here, aren't we? Curtice could turn out to be right. We really don't know how badly Labour's support is going to flake off, or how much of the Ukip vote might eventually migrate to the Tories. And we certainly don't know what effect events could have.
I don't see how the Conservatives won't come out of this with a comfortable working majority, but the final numbers are anybody's guess!
What is Labour's firewall, now?
1. Very deprived constituencies, eg much of Merseyside, rough bits of London and other big cities. I'm sure they'll hold firm.
2. Constituencies with many Black voters and Muslim voters (overlapping to an extent with 1). There's no burning issue to make them switch.
3. Constituencies with many Left wing professionals and middle class voters. Some will switch to the Lib Dems over Brexit, but in most cases, the Lib Dems will be starting from a long way behind, and most Labour MP's in such seats are Remainers. In most cases, the Lib Dems will be getting decent vote shares, rather than being serious challengers.
4. Residual "Our family's always been Labour, they're the party of the working class" - isolated ex-industrial areas in South Wales and North-East England. Overlaps with group 1.
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
Just because Christianity wasn't stamped out doesn't mean a lot of other things haven't been over the millennia. Christians managed to stamp out a lot of other belief systems once they were in the ascendancy for instance.
As mentioned in response to Andy, I am talking about policies and ways of changing behaviours that I would be happy implementing myself, or having others implement in my community. Measures that hold true to my value system. I am ruling out genocide and other extreme measures.
I would hope that you would be happy to see people who cause grievous bodily harm to children prosecuted. Or is that outside your value system.
Education and engagement does not necessarily rule out punishment when necessary, eg the suppression of suttee and meria in India.
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
Just because Christianity wasn't stamped out doesn't mean a lot of other things haven't been over the millennia. Christians managed to stamp out a lot of other belief systems once they were in the ascendancy for instance.
As mentioned in response to Andy, I am talking about policies and ways of changing behaviours that I would be happy implementing myself, or having others implement in my community. Measures that hold true to my value system. I am ruling out genocide and other extreme measures.
I would hope that you would be happy to see people who cause grievous bodily harm to children prosecuted. Or is that outside your value system.
I would, but my whole point is that reliance solely on legislation and prosecution will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. What it will do is push it underground further.
Reliance solely on legislation to prevent people from murdering and hacking each other's limbs off will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. We've been at it for centuries, after all. If we go after the culprits, we'll only push them even further underground. More tolerance for murderers and mutilators, I say. Isn't their view just as valid as our own?
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
Just because Christianity wasn't stamped out doesn't mean a lot of other things haven't been over the millennia. Christians managed to stamp out a lot of other belief systems once they were in the ascendancy for instance.
As mentioned in response to Andy, I am talking about policies and ways of changing behaviours that I would be happy implementing myself, or having others implement in my community. Measures that hold true to my value system. I am ruling out genocide and other extreme measures.
I would hope that you would be happy to see people who cause grievous bodily harm to children prosecuted. Or is that outside your value system.
I would, but my whole point is that reliance solely on legislation and prosecution will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. What it will do is push it underground further.
Pulpstar asked: "Whats the advice here ? Sell Tories at 393.5 ?"
That's very much the view I'm taking, but as ever DYOR.
Bet 365 398.5
Wow, that equates to a Tory majority of 147 - a couple of days ago we were told by Prof. Curtice that for the Tories to gain a majority of more than 90 would prove very difficult on account of Labour's entrenched levels of support in its heartlands. It looks like someone is going to be proved very wrong on this. Also to gain a majority of this magnitude does rather suggest that the number of seats the LibDems are set to win back from the Tories is likely to be limited, probably to single figures.
Polling suggests Labours entrenched support in its heartland is no longer there.
I think we're in uncharted territory here, aren't we? Curtice could turn out to be right. We really don't know how badly Labour's support is going to flake off, or how much of the Ukip vote might eventually migrate to the Tories. And we certainly don't know what effect events could have.
I don't see how the Conservatives won't come out of this with a comfortable working majority, but the final numbers are anybody's guess!
What is Labour's firewall, now?
1. Very deprived constituencies, eg much of Merseyside, rough bits of London and other big cities. I'm sure they'll hold firm.
2. Constituencies with many Black voters and Muslim voters (overlapping to an extent with 1). There's no burning issue to make them switch.
3. Constituencies with many Left wing professionals and middle class voters. Some will switch to the Lib Dems over Brexit, but in most cases, the Lib Dems will be starting from a long way behind, and most Labour MP's in such seats are Remainers. In most cases, the Lib Dems will be getting decent vote shares, rather than being serious challengers.
4. Residual "Our family's always been Labour, they're the party of the working class" - isolated ex-industrial areas in South Wales and North-East England. Overlaps with group 1.
Out of interest, where would this firewall leave Labour in terms of numbers of seats?
I have bet heavily on Labour 100 - 149 with a much smaller insurance bet on sub 100 seats, on the basis that once they start going below 149 anything is possible.
'A French mayor has threatened to quit because he doesn't want to 'dedicate his life to a***holes' after his town voted for Marine Le Pen as president. Daniel Delomez described the results in Annezin, northern France, as 'catastrophic' after 38 per cent of voters backed the National Front candidate in the first round of the presidential election.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4439672/French-mayor-brands-voters-holes-backing-Le-Pen.html
That's hilarious!
I have some sympathy though. I can remember feeling a bit that way the day after the referendum, but you adjust and life goes on, assholes notwithstanding.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
The Chinese wiped out foot-binding in just a few years because they were determined to stop it.
It's amazing. I think of myself as fairly right wing (particularly on economic, finance and defence issues), but I am constantly gobsmacked by how far to the right of me many on PB are! What, you want us to be China!!!!???
I hear genocide is pretty good at wiping out practices you don't like also.
I really liked your earlier post, Tim, and well done for posting it. But is it a left-wing/right-wing thing? Isn't it just simply that some have a sensible idea of how to deal with these issues, others don't?
I think it is more a hard scientist/engineer vs social scientist/systems approach difference. I am that rare type, a hard scientist converted to social science, particularly behaviour and cognitive science.
I read and teach these techniques because with no end of knowledge and resources, we still have unsafe behaviours in labs and hospitals. The problems are simply not technical (what) but social (how to get the behaviours we want).
I should, on the basis of tonight, publicly state that I am no longer a PB Tory, but a PB Libertarian.
PS Thanks for the support. I hope to be coming to London more frequently in the future, so maybe I'll be able to make some PB socials and we can chew the fat then, unless you have already left for balmier shores.
There are no reliable population rates over time, but we do know that rates in second generation migrants are much lower than in first generation. Rates are also lower in more educated migrants.
There is always a tabloid "string em up" culture over child protection issues, but experience has not always been that removing children from substandard parents is the best way forward. The legions of children in care abused by staff or trafficked into prostitution tell us that.
But the beauty of an effective screening program is, there's no one to string up because the practice is killed stone dead.
What is your budgetary plan to finance this massive targetting of police and childcare resources? It is encouraging to hear PB rightwingers advocating investment in public services for women and ethnic minorities.
Are you pretending to think I don't really mind about women being forcibly mutilated because they are women, or from ethnic minorities? A peculiarly silly suggestion. And why would there be a police involvement in a screening for physical evidence of genital mutilation?
Are you expecting for 30 000 girls to be inspected annually without additional resources?
If the children refuse examination, should the state forcibly examine them? How would you envisage this being done?
We know that abuse victims are often unwilling to testify against their abusers. What happens if they are unwilling to do so, or if they cover up for their families?
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
Just because Christianity wasn't stamped out doesn't mean a lot of other things haven't been over the millennia. Christians managed to stamp out a lot of other belief systems once they were in the ascendancy for instance.
As mentioned in response to Andy, I am talking about policies and ways of changing behaviours that I would be happy implementing myself, or having others implement in my community. Measures that hold true to my value system. I am ruling out genocide and other extreme measures.
I would hope that you would be happy to see people who cause grievous bodily harm to children prosecuted. Or is that outside your value system.
I would, but my whole point is that reliance solely on legislation and prosecution will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. What it will do is push it underground further.
I've just been perusing the constituency odds on Sky Bet. Bloody Hell. Tories nailed on favourites- 1/6 and the like - in Newcastle under Lyme, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Newport East. They didn't win some of those even in 1983.
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
Simply banning a practice does not work....Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
I agree with you, but it's not a either/or: you can do both. Treat it like a communicable disease and do the epidemiology: compulsory notification by GPs, compulsory follow-up, make the parents responsible for the child, jail sentences for noncompliance. ignorance no defence. We have wellpracticed procedures for disease tracking and control, god knows how many GPs, nurses and social services, and cops in every village. It's doable.
but as we can see here, not thought very PC from a "liberal" perspective so not very likely
'A French mayor has threatened to quit because he doesn't want to 'dedicate his life to a***holes' after his town voted for Marine Le Pen as president. Daniel Delomez described the results in Annezin, northern France, as 'catastrophic' after 38 per cent of voters backed the National Front candidate in the first round of the presidential election.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4439672/French-mayor-brands-voters-holes-backing-Le-Pen.html
That's hilarious!
I have some sympathy though. I can remember feeling a bit that way the day after the referendum, but you adjust and life goes on, assholes notwithstanding.
Indeed, though you can understand he no longer has quite the same commitment to public service as he did before
I've just been perusing the constituency odds on Sky Bet. Bloody Hell. Tories nailed on favourites- 1/6 and the like - in Newcastle under Lyme, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Newport East. They didn't win some of those even in 1983.
They didn't win ANY of those in 1983.
On the other hand Ilford S and Croydon N would have been Conservative on their current boundaries in 1992 yet they're both 1/200 Labour.
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
Just because Christianity wasn't stamped out doesn't mean a lot of other things haven't been over the millennia. Christians managed to stamp out a lot of other belief systems once they were in the ascendancy for instance.
As mentioned in response to Andy
I would hope that you would be happy to see people who cause grievous bodily harm to children prosecuted. Or is that outside your value system.
I would, but my whole point is that reliance solely on legislation and prosecution will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. What it will do is push it underground further.
Reliance solely on legislation to prevent people from murdering and hacking each other's limbs off will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. We've been at it for centuries, after all. If we go after the culprits, we'll only push them even further underground. More tolerance for murderers and mutilators, I say. Isn't their view just as valid as our own?
No one is advocating tolerance, just arguing that a less coercive approach is better.
Extreme coercion does not always work, indeed there are many on here who suggest that the war on drugs is best conducted by legalisation and education rather than an overtly punitive approach to drug possession.
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
Ceredigon or Llanelli.
It won't be Ceredigion, which leaves Llanelli. Possible I guess but I've got it as a Labour hold with the Tories second.
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
And just before I go, what is Kezia on? Did it really escape SLAB's attention that it was the SNP that took 40 of their Scottish seats just 2 years ago, not the hated Tories? The idea that Labour can get elected in Scotland (as they were for 20 years or more) simply to keep the Tories out is bizarre. When are they going to realise that their fight is actually with the SNP who are completely destroying them?
It is the SNP who are going to take 150 of their Council seats next month as well. At least try to fight them before its too late, for goodness sake.
In the days of vinyl records, they sometimes got scratched which resulted in endless repeats of the same phrase of music.
They tell me that vinyl is very "in" these days Anne - my son has mine and early Bowie means extra kudos.
I've just been perusing the constituency odds on Sky Bet. Bloody Hell. Tories nailed on favourites- 1/6 and the like - in Newcastle under Lyme, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Newport East. They didn't win some of those even in 1983.
They didn't win ANY of those in 1983.
On the other hand Ilford S and Croydon N would have been Conservative on their current boundaries in 1992 yet they're both 1/200 Labour.
Backing Labour ANYWHERE at 1-200 is "bold" I'd say.
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
Ceredigon or Llanelli.
It won't be Ceredigion, which leaves Llanelli. Possible I guess but I've got it as a Labour hold with the Tories second.
What's this five PC seats all about ? Is it a bet somewhere ?
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
Ceredigon or Llanelli.
It won't be Ceredigion, which leaves Llanelli. Possible I guess but I've got it as a Labour hold with the Tories second.
What's this five PC seats all about ? Is it a bet somewhere ?
Education and engagement does not necessarily rule out punishment when necessary, eg the suppression of suttee and meria in India.
Quite so, but we seem to be a bit short on the prosecution of offenders side of things. How many convictions for FGM have there been? How many victims that the state knows about?
I suspect that the reason is because this crime is "Cultural", so nobody in authority wants to go near it. We must accept that all cultures are equal and therefore some British girls can be illegally mutilated and hard luck to them, because there abusers cannot be prosecuted.
Simply banning a practice does not work....Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
I agree with you, but it's not a either/or: you can do both. Treat it like a communicable disease and do the epidemiology: compulsory notification by GPs, compulsory follow-up, make the parents responsible for the child, jail sentences for noncompliance. ignorance no defence. We have wellpracticed procedures for disease tracking and control, god knows how many GPs, nurses and social services, and cops in every village. It's doable.
but as we can see here, not thought very PC from a "liberal" perspective so not very likely
On the contrary, as I have repeatedly pointed out, this is current NHS policy!
Reliance solely on legislation to prevent people from murdering and hacking each other's limbs off will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. We've been at it for centuries, after all. If we go after the culprits, we'll only push them even further underground. More tolerance for murderers and mutilators, I say. Isn't their view just as valid as our own?
So trite.
We do not rely solely on legislation and policing to prevent murder. Abhorrence for murder (at least within the tribe) is one of the strongest cultural artifacts in every civilization. For the most part, we rely on culture, not policing, to prevent murder.
I've just been perusing the constituency odds on Sky Bet. Bloody Hell. Tories nailed on favourites- 1/6 and the like - in Newcastle under Lyme, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Newport East. They didn't win some of those even in 1983.
They didn't win ANY of those in 1983.
On the other hand Ilford S and Croydon N would have been Conservative on their current boundaries in 1992 yet they're both 1/200 Labour.
Backing Labour ANYWHERE at 1-200 is "bold" I'd say.
I've just been perusing the constituency odds on Sky Bet. Bloody Hell. Tories nailed on favourites- 1/6 and the like - in Newcastle under Lyme, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Newport East. They didn't win some of those even in 1983.
They didn't win ANY of those in 1983.
On the other hand Ilford S and Croydon N would have been Conservative on their current boundaries in 1992 yet they're both 1/200 Labour.
Backing Labour ANYWHERE at 1-200 is "bold" I'd say.
Liverpool Walton?
Take the 1-200 on a safe Tory seat, you have quite a choice, if you're that way inclined.
There are no reliable population rates over time, but we do know that rates in second generation migrants are much lower than in first generation. Rates are also lower in more educated migrants.
There is always a tabloid "string em up" culture over child protection issues, but experience has not always been that removing children from substandard parents is the best way forward. The legions of children in care abused by staff or trafficked into prostitution tell us that.
But the beauty of an effective screening program is, there's no one to string up because the practice is killed stone dead.
What is your budgetary plan to finance this massive targetting of police and childcare resources? It is encouraging to hear PB rightwingers advocating investment in public services for women and ethnic minorities.
Are you pretending to think I don't really mind about women being forcibly mutilated because they are women, or from ethnic minorities? A peculiarly silly suggestion. And why would there be a police involvement in a screening for physical evidence of genital mutilation?
Are you expecting for 30 000 girls to be inspected annually without additional resources?
If the children refuse examination, should the state forcibly examine them? How would you envisage this being done?
We know that abuse victims are often unwilling to testify against their abusers. What happens if they are unwilling to do so, or if they cover up for their families?
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
Ceredigon or Llanelli.
It won't be Ceredigion, which leaves Llanelli. Possible I guess but I've got it as a Labour hold with the Tories second.
What's this five PC seats all about ? Is it a bet somewhere ?
Really? You change lots of behaviours by actually making them illegal, identifying their practice and prosecuting and imprisoning the offenders. Positive Deviance is possibly a useful second string approach if you are a Westerner in Egypt, but this isn't Egypt and the Westerners make the rules here. The snowflake objection to screening simply evaporates (or technically, sublimates) if you screen the whole population without reference to ethnicity or religion. Job done.
Legislation at best changes some people's behaviour, not everyone's. If your approach worked to the extent you imply it should vis-a-vis FGM, there would be no crime of any kind at all, because it has been legislated and is policed.
Whatever we may feel about the rights and wrongs of FGM, it is deeply embedded culturally in the communities that practice it. Simply banning a practice does not work. Think about the Christian martyrs being fed to the lions. That worked well to stamp out Christianity, didn't it?
Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
Positive deviance is a general technique which works in all cultures in all countries, where there are non-technical reasons as to why people are unable to change habits. Before dismissing it, read up about it.
Just because Christianity wasn't stamped out doesn't mean a lot of other things haven't been over the millennia. Christians managed to stamp out a lot of other belief systems once they were in the ascendancy for instance.
As mentioned in response to Andy, I am talking about policies and ways of changing behaviours that I would be happy implementing myself, or having others implement in my community. Measures that hold true to my value system. I am ruling out genocide and other extreme measures.
I would hope that you would be happy to see people who cause grievous bodily harm to children prosecuted. Or is that outside your value system.
I would, but my whole point is that reliance solely on legislation and prosecution will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. What it will do is push it underground further.
'A French mayor has threatened to quit because he doesn't want to 'dedicate his life to a***holes' after his town voted for Marine Le Pen as president. Daniel Delomez described the results in Annezin, northern France, as 'catastrophic' after 38 per cent of voters backed the National Front candidate in the first round of the presidential election.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4439672/French-mayor-brands-voters-holes-backing-Le-Pen.html
That's hilarious!
I have some sympathy though. I can remember feeling a bit that way the day after the referendum, but you adjust and life goes on, assholes notwithstanding.
Indeed, though you can understand he no longer has quite the same commitment to public service as he did before
True.
Btw, I wasn't mocking you for your persistence with the 'Le Pen can still win' line last nite. In fact I kind of agreed with you - to the extent that I hedged my Macron bets. I did think it got a bit funny in the end though, but in a wholly admirable and enjoyable kind of way.
I've just been perusing the constituency odds on Sky Bet. Bloody Hell. Tories nailed on favourites- 1/6 and the like - in Newcastle under Lyme, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Newport East. They didn't win some of those even in 1983.
They didn't win ANY of those in 1983.
On the other hand Ilford S and Croydon N would have been Conservative on their current boundaries in 1992 yet they're both 1/200 Labour.
Backing Labour ANYWHERE at 1-200 is "bold" I'd say.
Liverpool Walton?
The tremendously popular Rotheram standing down there. If you had to point a gun to my head I'd go with Knowsley personally. Most christian seat in the country.
No one is advocating tolerance, just arguing that a less coercive approach is better.
Extreme coercion does not always work, indeed there are many on here who suggest that the war on drugs is best conducted by legalisation and education rather than an overtly punitive approach to drug possession.
That's because some believe drug taking to be a victimless crime unlike mutilating somebody's genitalia. It's the difference between legalizing prostitution and legalizing rape.
No one is advocating tolerance, just arguing that a less coercive approach is better.
Extreme coercion does not always work, indeed there are many on here who suggest that the war on drugs is best conducted by legalisation and education rather than an overtly punitive approach to drug possession.
You can't seriously be equating the mutilation of a child's genitals with the possesion of a teenth of weed?
Possession of drugs harms no-one - even heroin addiction itself is harmless, it's the crime associated with the need to feed the habit (which can be covered by other laws) that's the problem.
FGM scars a child for life. For life.
Coercion to prevent it happening is one side of the coin - but so is punishment after the fact.
We must send a clear and unequivocal message that this barbaric practice cannot be tolerated in our society.
And we should give the victims a chance for justice.
There are no reliable population rates over time, but we do know that rates in second generation migrants are much lower than in first generation. Rates are also lower in more educated migrants.
There is always a tabloid "string em up" culture over child protection issues, but experience has not always been that removing children from substandard parents is the best way forward. The legions of children in care abused by staff or trafficked into prostitution tell us that.
But the beauty of an effective screening program is, there's no one to string up because the practice is killed stone dead.
What is your budgetary plan to finance this massive targetting of police and childcare resources? It is encouraging to hear PB rightwingers advocating investment in public services for women and ethnic minorities.
Are you pretending to think I don't really mind about women being forcibly mutilated because they are women, or from ethnic minorities? A peculiarly silly suggestion. And why would there be a police involvement in a screening for physical evidence of genital mutilation?
Are you expecting for 30 000 girls to be inspected annually without additional resources?
If the children refuse examination, should the state forcibly examine them? How would you envisage this being done?
We know that abuse victims are often unwilling to testify against their abusers. What happens if they are unwilling to do so, or if they cover up for their families?
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
Ceredigon or Llanelli.
It won't be Ceredigion, which leaves Llanelli. Possible I guess but I've got it as a Labour hold with the Tories second.
What's this five PC seats all about ? Is it a bet somewhere ?
Under over line for Plaid is 4.5.
Isn't the under 8/15 though?
Yes, I still like it though - Plaid always underwhelm.
Local BBC news lead on 2 LDs standing down in Yeovil & Bath.
Bath as well? Yeovil is probably beyond them but Bath is a key target, and frankly they don't have that many winnable seats to aim for. Not all going to plan for the Yellows, it would seem.
Maybe making way for a 'big beast'?
Eh?
The Lib Dems hardly have anyone with a big public profile. Farron and Clegg already have seats, Cable's having a crack at his old one, and all their living ex-leaders have long since retired to the Lords.
Are there any others whom more than 1 person in the street in every 10 could identify, if shown a photograph?
You really don't like the Lib Dems, do you ?
I think he's saying he doesn't recognise any (unless they're wearing a rosette?)
I don't particularly dislike the Lib Dems actually. I was making a genuine point. In a completely flippant way, but a genuine point nonetheless.
I'd recognise a fair few of them. Not sure how many non-geeks would though.
I know the feeling, "I know his face but what was his name? You know, that Cheeky Girls one".
Ah, the penny drops!
They're not going to bring back Lembit Opik to fight Bath - are they?
Lord Mandelson, an Open Britain board member, claimed it was counterproductive for prime minister Theresa May to enter Brexit negotiations with a rigid set of red lines, and said he believed millions of jobs were at stake.
“Election candidates of all parties should be demanding that a hard Brexit is rejected and making clear that they will reserve judgment on the outcome until they see whether we get exactly the same trade benefits, as [Brexit secretary] David Davis has promised,” he said.
In the days when he was fully compos - indeed, one of the finest political brains of the past quarter century - he would have appreciated the contradiction between the first and the second paragraphs.
No one is advocating tolerance, just arguing that a less coercive approach is better.
Extreme coercion does not always work, indeed there are many on here who suggest that the war on drugs is best conducted by legalisation and education rather than an overtly punitive approach to drug possession.
"No one is advocating tolerance ..."
What the hell is refusing to prosecute those responsible if not tolerance of the offence? Mrs CycleFree, lady of this parish, made a very sensible suggestion the last time we had a debate about this issue - make it an absolute offence. Child found mutilated, the parents are guilty.
It's a horrendous idea, it's just utterly disgraceful.
Why?
Targeting ethnic and religious groups for invasive medical exams. Seriously, that is wrong in almost every way imaginable.
What if there is a problem that is specific to a religious or ethnic group?
So we make an entire generation of girls from particular groups victims of the state to catch the occasional one who has been the victim of barbaric practices. It's an utter abomination of an idea.
Let's work in the real world please. How would you stop this abominable practice?
This proposal fails the smell test. We need to prevent FGM and I don't know how exactly to do this, I'm not an expert on this issue. I just have a big problem with the optics of the approach of subjecting young girls to invasive examinations in this way.
So your not offending your sensibilities is more important than the safety and health of young girls?
A very selfish view, but a sadly one common among liberal types who want to ignore the problems rather than confront them head on, come what may.
I'm probably with ToryJim on this. The objective must be to stop FGM and protect children in those communities. But you don't achieve that by legislation and policing, you do it by changing the culture of the community, which means you need not just their cooperation, but their ownership of the issue.
Highly recommend the book 'The Power of Positive Deviance', which records, inter alia, how some Westerners engaged local communities in Egypt to rid the practice of FGM in many villages.
No one is advocating tolerance, just arguing that a less coercive approach is better.
Extreme coercion does not always work, indeed there are many on here who suggest that the war on drugs is best conducted by legalisation and education rather than an overtly punitive approach to drug possession.
You can't seriously be equating the mutilation of a child's genitals with the possesion of a teenth of weed?
Possession of drugs harms no-one - even heroin addiction itself is harmless, it's the crime associated with the need to feed the habit (which can be covered by other laws) that's the problem.
FGM scars a child for life. For life.
Coercion to prevent it happening is one side of the coin - but so is punishment after the fact.
We must send a clear and unequivocal message that this barbaric practice cannot be tolerated in our society.
And we should give the victims a chance for justice.
Narcotic overdoses now kill more Americans than guns or motor vehicles.
The problem comes whena pracice is culturally accepted, whether a kid with some weed or ancient traditions.
Even adult FGM victims are generally unwilling to imprison their own parents.
Lord Mandelson, an Open Britain board member, claimed it was counterproductive for prime minister Theresa May to enter Brexit negotiations with a rigid set of red lines, and said he believed millions of jobs were at stake.
“Election candidates of all parties should be demanding that a hard Brexit is rejected and making clear that they will reserve judgment on the outcome until they see whether we get exactly the same trade benefits, as [Brexit secretary] David Davis has promised,” he said.
In the days when he was fully compos - indeed, one of the finest political brains of the past quarter century - he would have appreciated the contradiction between the first and the second paragraphs.
So why is Bolton SE 1/16 Labour but Blackburn only 1/6 when Blackburn's much safer ?
The only thing I can think of is that Blackburn was a lot more marginal than Bolton NE in the 1980s and 1990s. The Blackburn majority was down to 3,000 in 1983 for instance.
I've just been perusing the constituency odds on Sky Bet. Bloody Hell. Tories nailed on favourites- 1/6 and the like - in Newcastle under Lyme, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Newport East. They didn't win some of those even in 1983.
They didn't win ANY of those in 1983.
On the other hand Ilford S and Croydon N would have been Conservative on their current boundaries in 1992 yet they're both 1/200 Labour.
Really? Well that is equally interesting. Similarly, the Tories will not win seats like Manchester Withington, Sheffield Hallam, Newcastle upon Tyne Central that they won in 1983. The long-term shift in the pattern of political geography in the UK is fascinating. We seem to be going through the same shift the USA did 20-odd years ago: the divide is no longer rich v poor but, for want of a better term, fashionable location v unfashionable location.
And just before I go, what is Kezia on? Did it really escape SLAB's attention that it was the SNP that took 40 of their Scottish seats just 2 years ago, not the hated Tories? The idea that Labour can get elected in Scotland (as they were for 20 years or more) simply to keep the Tories out is bizarre. When are they going to realise that their fight is actually with the SNP who are completely destroying them?
It is the SNP who are going to take 150 of their Council seats next month as well. At least try to fight them before its too late, for goodness sake.
In the days of vinyl records, they sometimes got scratched which resulted in endless repeats of the same phrase of music.
They tell me that vinyl is very "in" these days Anne - my son has mine and early Bowie means extra kudos.
At it's best, vinyl is art as well as music. Some music was recorded to be heard on vinyl as well. It just doesn't transfer across to digital in the right way.
Reliance solely on legislation to prevent people from murdering and hacking each other's limbs off will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. We've been at it for centuries, after all. If we go after the culprits, we'll only push them even further underground. More tolerance for murderers and mutilators, I say. Isn't their view just as valid as our own?
So trite.
We do not rely solely on legislation and policing to prevent murder. Abhorrence for murder (at least within the tribe) is one of the strongest cultural artifacts in every civilization. For the most part, we rely on culture, not policing, to prevent murder.
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
Ceredigon or Llanelli.
It won't be Ceredigion, which leaves Llanelli. Possible I guess but I've got it as a Labour hold with the Tories second.
What's this five PC seats all about ? Is it a bet somewhere ?
Pulpstar asked: "Whats the advice here ? Sell Tories at 393.5 ?"
That's very much the view I'm taking, but as ever DYOR.
Bet 365 398.5
Wow, that equates to a Tory majority of 147 - a couple of days ago we were told by Prof. Curtice that for the Tories to gain a majority of more than 90 would prove very difficult on account of Labour's entrenched levels of support in its heartlands. It looks like someone is going to be proved very wrong on this. Also to gain a majority of this magnitude does rather suggest that the number of seats the LibDems are set to win back from the Tories is likely to be limited, probably to single figures.
Polling suggests Labours entrenched support in its heartland is no longer there.
I think we're in uncharted territory here, aren't we? Curtice could turn out to be right. We really don't know how badly Labour's support is going to flake off, or how much of the Ukip vote might eventually migrate to the Tories. And we certainly don't know what effect events could have.
I don't see how the Conservatives won't come out of this with a comfortable working majority, but the final numbers are anybody's guess!
What is Labour's firewall, now?
1. Very deprived constituencies, eg much of Merseyside, rough bits of London and other big cities. I'm sure they'll hold firm.
2. Constituencies with many Black voters and Muslim voters (overlapping to an extent with 1). There's no burning issue to make them switch.
3. Constituencies with many Left wing professionals and middle class voters. Some will switch to the Lib Dems over Brexit, but in most cases, the Lib Dems will be starting from a long way behind, and most Labour MP's in such seats are Remainers. In most cases, the Lib Dems will be getting decent vote shares, rather than being serious challengers.
4. Residual "Our family's always been Labour, they're the party of the working class" - isolated ex-industrial areas in South Wales and North-East England. Overlaps with group 1.
Out of interest, where would this firewall leave Labour in terms of numbers of seats?
I have bet heavily on Labour 100 - 149 with a much smaller insurance bet on sub 100 seats, on the basis that once they start going below 149 anything is possible.
My rough calculation is that about 120 Labour seats are unloseable, as of now. Another 70 or so are vulnerable, and about 40 are lost.
Reliance solely on legislation to prevent people from murdering and hacking each other's limbs off will not work to overturn a deeply rooted cultural practice. We've been at it for centuries, after all. If we go after the culprits, we'll only push them even further underground. More tolerance for murderers and mutilators, I say. Isn't their view just as valid as our own?
So trite.
We do not rely solely on legislation and policing to prevent murder. Abhorrence for murder (at least within the tribe) is one of the strongest cultural artifacts in every civilization. For the most part, we rely on culture, not policing, to prevent murder.
So thanks, you've made my point very nicely.
We do not rely solely on legislation and policing to prevent murder. But when murders do occur, we prosecute, 100% of the time, and we lock the offenders up to prevent them harming another person, and to give what little justice we can to those who have been harmed.
No one is advocating tolerance, just arguing that a less coercive approach is better.
Extreme coercion does not always work, indeed there are many on here who suggest that the war on drugs is best conducted by legalisation and education rather than an overtly punitive approach to drug possession.
"No one is advocating tolerance ..."
What the hell is refusing to prosecute those responsible if not tolerance of the offence? Mrs CycleFree, lady of this parish, made a very sensible suggestion the last time we had a debate about this issue - make it an absolute offence. Child found mutilated, the parents are guilty.
No one is refusing to prosecute, but preventing the crime is better.
There are no reliable population rates over time, but we do know that rates in second generation migrants are much lower than in first generation. Rates are also lower in more educated migrants.
There is always a tabloid "string em up" culture over child protection issues, but experience has not always been that removing children from substandard parents is the best way forward. The legions of children in care abused by staff or trafficked into prostitution tell us that.
But the beauty of an effective screening program is, there's no one to string up because the practice is killed stone dead.
What is your budgetary plan to finance this massive targetting of police and childcare resources? It is encouraging to hear PB rightwingers advocating investment in public services for women and ethnic minorities.
Are you pretending to think I don't really mind about women being forcibly mutilated because they are women, or from ethnic minorities? A peculiarly silly suggestion. And why would there be a police involvement in a screening for physical evidence of genital mutilation?
Are you expecting for 30 000 girls to be inspected annually without additional resources?
If the children refuse examination, should the state forcibly examine them? How would you envisage this being done?
We know that abuse victims are often unwilling to testify against their abusers. What happens if they are unwilling to do so, or if they cover up for their families?
With the greatest respect, FGM once found in a child needs no testimony from anyone. The parents are responsible.
There are notices all over the walls in our local venue for ?Safe/Sure Start informing parents that "your children are your responsibility at all times".
I'd still love to know where the FIFTH Plaid seat is coming from. Carmathen East looks a potential Tory battle to me, and Yns Mons is faaaaaaaar from certain. And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
Ceredigon or Llanelli.
It won't be Ceredigion, which leaves Llanelli. Possible I guess but I've got it as a Labour hold with the Tories second.
What's this five PC seats all about ? Is it a bet somewhere ?
Simply banning a practice does not work....Fiat simply does achieve 100% compliance with anything, even when the penalty for non-compliance is death. If you want to achieve high and enduring levels of change, you have to change the mindset and the culture.
I agree with you, but it's not a either/or: you can do both. Treat it like a communicable disease and do the epidemiology: compulsory notification by GPs, compulsory follow-up, make the parents responsible for the child, jail sentences for noncompliance. ignorance no defence. We have wellpracticed procedures for disease tracking and control, god knows how many GPs, nurses and social services, and cops in every village. It's doable.
but as we can see here, not thought very PC from a "liberal" perspective so not very likely
On the contrary, as I have repeatedly pointed out, this is current NHS policy!
There are no reliable population rates over time, but we do know that rates in second generation migrants are much lower than in first generation. Rates are also lower in more educated migrants.
There is always a tabloid "string em up" culture over child protection issues, but experience has not always been that removing children from substandard parents is the best way forward. The legions of children in care abused by staff or trafficked into prostitution tell us that.
But the beauty of an effective screening program is, there's no one to string up because the practice is killed stone dead.
What is your budgetary plan to finance this massive targetting of police and childcare resources? It is encouraging to hear PB rightwingers advocating investment in public services for women and ethnic minorities.
Are you pretending to think I don't really mind about women being forcibly mutilated because they are women, or from ethnic minorities? A peculiarly silly suggestion. And why would there be a police involvement in a screening for physical evidence of genital mutilation?
Are you expecting for 30 000 girls to be inspected annually without additional resources?
If the children refuse examination, should the state forcibly examine them? How would you envisage this being done?
We know that abuse victims are often unwilling to testify against their abusers. What happens if they are unwilling to do so, or if they cover up for their families?
how do you cover up FGM?
Refuse to say how it was done, or by whom.
Parents, parents, parents or was it the man in the sweet shop?
No one is advocating tolerance, just arguing that a less coercive approach is better.
Extreme coercion does not always work, indeed there are many on here who suggest that the war on drugs is best conducted by legalisation and education rather than an overtly punitive approach to drug possession.
"No one is advocating tolerance ..."
What the hell is refusing to prosecute those responsible if not tolerance of the offence? Mrs CycleFree, lady of this parish, made a very sensible suggestion the last time we had a debate about this issue - make it an absolute offence. Child found mutilated, the parents are guilty.
No one is refusing to prosecute, but preventing the crime is better.
Yes, jolly good. How many prosecutions have there been?
Local BBC news lead on 2 LDs standing down in Yeovil & Bath.
Bath as well? Yeovil is probably beyond them but Bath is a key target, and frankly they don't have that many winnable seats to aim for. Not all going to plan for the Yellows, it would seem.
Maybe making way for a 'big beast'?
Eh?
The Lib Dems hardly have anyone with a big public profile. Farron and Clegg already have seats, Cable's having a crack at his old one, and all their living ex-leaders have long since retired to the Lords.
Are there any others whom more than 1 person in the street in every 10 could identify, if shown a photograph?
You really don't like the Lib Dems, do you ?
I think he's saying he doesn't recognise any (unless they're wearing a rosette?)
I don't particularly dislike the Lib Dems actually. I was making a genuine point. In a completely flippant way, but a genuine point nonetheless.
I'd recognise a fair few of them. Not sure how many non-geeks would though.
I know the feeling, "I know his face but what was his name? You know, that Cheeky Girls one".
Ah, the penny drops!
They're not going to bring back Lembit Opik to fight Bath - are they?
There are no reliable population rates over time, but we do know that rates in second generation migrants are much lower than in first generation. Rates are also lower in more educated migrants.
There is always a tabloid "string em up" culture over child protection issues, but experience has not always been that removing children from substandard parents is the best way forward. The legions of children in care abused by staff or trafficked into prostitution tell us that.
But the beauty of an effective screening program is, there's no one to string up because the practice is killed stone dead.
What is your budgetary plan to finance this massive targetting of police and childcare resources? It is encouraging to hear PB rightwingers advocating investment in public services for women and ethnic minorities.
Are you pretending to think I don't really mind about women being forcibly mutilated because they are women, or from ethnic minorities? A peculiarly silly suggestion. And why would there be a police involvement in a screening for physical evidence of genital mutilation?
Are you expecting for 30 000 girls to be inspected annually without additional resources?
If the children refuse examination, should the state forcibly examine them? How would you envisage this being done?
We know that abuse victims are often unwilling to testify against their abusers. What happens if they are unwilling to do so, or if they cover up for their families?
how do you cover up FGM?
Refuse to say how it was done, or by whom.
You think the parents of a child would be able to argue that ??
No one is advocating tolerance, just arguing that a less coercive approach is better. Extreme coercion does not always work, indeed there are many on here who suggest that the war on drugs is best conducted by legalisation and education rather than an overtly punitive approach to drug possession.
"No one is advocating tolerance ..."
What the hell is refusing to prosecute those responsible if not tolerance of the offence? Mrs CycleFree, lady of this parish, made a very sensible suggestion the last time we had a debate about this issue - make it an absolute offence. Child found mutilated, the parents are guilty.
No one is refusing to prosecute, but preventing the crime is better.
Maybe but prosecute first and then use that fact to prevent the crime. To do otherwise is a sign of weakness/tolerance and should be resisted.
It's a horrendous idea, it's just utterly disgraceful.
Why?
Targeting ethnic and religious groups for invasive medical exams. Seriously, that is wrong in almost every way imaginable.
What if there is a problem that is specific to a religious or ethnic group?
So we make an entire generation of girls from particular groups victims of the state to catch the occasional one who has been the victim of barbaric practices. It's an utter abomination of an idea.
Let's work in the real world please. How would you stop this abominable practice?
This proposal fails the smell test. We need to prevent FGM and I don't know how exactly to do this, I'm not an expert on this issue. I just have a big problem with the optics of the approach of subjecting young girls to invasive examinations in this way.
So your not offending your sensibilities is more important than the safety and health of young girls?
A very selfish view, but a sadly one common among liberal types who want to ignore the problems rather than confront them head on, come what may.
I'm probably with ToryJim on this. The objective must be to stop FGM and protect children in those communities. But you don't achieve that by legislation and policing, you do it by changing the culture of the community, which means you need not just their cooperation, but their ownership of the issue.
Highly recommend the book 'The Power of Positive Deviance', which records, inter alia, how some Westerners engaged local communities in Egypt to rid the practice of FGM in many villages.
So why is Bolton SE 1/16 Labour but Blackburn only 1/6 when Blackburn's much safer ?
The only thing I can think of is that Blackburn was a lot more marginal than Bolton NE in the 1980s and 1990s. The Blackburn majority was down to 3,000 in 1983 for instance.
Both should be safe, but *no bet* for me at 1-6 and certainly not at 1-16.
Fillon voters split Macron 41% Le Pen 33%, Melenchon voters Macron 51% Le Pen 19%
A third of conservatives are closet Fascists. Who'd have thought.
20 % of hard left supporters are closet Fascists-Who'd have thought it
BUT BUT BUT ..........
We are on the left of the political spectrum -we are PURE-only the Right has nasty Racists
I am sick and tired of hearing how candidate X Y or Z is "Hard Right" because they are Racist.
Racists, anti Semites, misogynists and homophobes occupy all parts of the political spectrum and until the Left recognise this they will be as inept at dealing with this as the Right was for far too long.
Out of interest, where would this firewall leave Labour in terms of numbers of seats?
I have bet heavily on Labour 100 - 149 with a much smaller insurance bet on sub 100 seats, on the basis that once they start going below 149 anything is possible.
My rough calculation is that about 120 Labour seats are unloseable, as of now. Another 70 or so are vulnerable, and about 40 are lost.
Interesting, thank you for the reply. I stuck a tenner on Labour < 100 seats at 12/1 out of fear that once you get into sub 150 seats territory, UNS breaks down to the point you end up with a result that looks more like 1931 than 1983 and I didn't want my losses to be too great if that was the case.
I've just been perusing the constituency odds on Sky Bet. Bloody Hell. Tories nailed on favourites- 1/6 and the like - in Newcastle under Lyme, Bishop Auckland, Wrexham, Newport East. They didn't win some of those even in 1983.
They didn't win ANY of those in 1983.
On the other hand Ilford S and Croydon N would have been Conservative on their current boundaries in 1992 yet they're both 1/200 Labour.
Really? Well that is equally interesting. Similarly, the Tories will not win seats like Manchester Withington, Sheffield Hallam, Newcastle upon Tyne Central that they won in 1983. The long-term shift in the pattern of political geography in the UK is fascinating. We seem to be going through the same shift the USA did 20-odd years ago: the divide is no longer rich v poor but, for want of a better term, fashionable location v unfashionable location.
Edmonton, Leeds NE, Leeds NW, Croydon North, Mitcham & Morden, Ilford South, Edmonton, Exeter, Brent North, Sefton Central were Tory seats in 1992 that are now out of reach. A mix of well-off and run-down.
But, there are plenty of seats that moved in the opposite direction.
Comments
1. Very deprived constituencies, eg much of Merseyside, rough bits of London and other big cities. I'm sure they'll hold firm.
2. Constituencies with many Black voters and Muslim voters (overlapping to an extent with 1). There's no burning issue to make them switch.
3. Constituencies with many Left wing professionals and middle class voters. Some will switch to the Lib Dems over Brexit, but in most cases, the Lib Dems will be starting from a long way behind, and most Labour MP's in such seats are Remainers. In most cases, the Lib Dems will be getting decent vote shares, rather than being serious challengers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4441542/Danczuk-parades-fianc-e-hopes-marry-Parliament.html
Daniel Delomez described the results in Annezin, northern France, as 'catastrophic' after 38 per cent of voters backed the National Front candidate in the first round of the presidential election.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4439672/French-mayor-brands-voters-holes-backing-Le-Pen.html
A bit of an advanced one - but you'll only lose if the Tories get 397, 398 or 399 and you are getting 1.07 on the remainder of the seat numbers.
Seriously - I don't think that mutilating children's gentials = life imprisonment should be a contentious issue.
*files under Things That Are Never Going To Happen 2017*
Max £100
I have bet heavily on Labour 100 - 149 with a much smaller insurance bet on sub 100 seats, on the basis that once they start going below 149 anything is possible.
I have some sympathy though. I can remember feeling a bit that way the day after the referendum, but you adjust and life goes on, assholes notwithstanding.
It is almost as if Bet365 are confident about their prices and Coral aren't
I read and teach these techniques because with no end of knowledge and resources, we still have unsafe behaviours in labs and hospitals. The problems are simply not technical (what) but social (how to get the behaviours we want).
I should, on the basis of tonight, publicly state that I am no longer a PB Tory, but a PB Libertarian.
PS Thanks for the support. I hope to be coming to London more frequently in the future, so maybe I'll be able to make some PB socials and we can chew the fat then, unless you have already left for balmier shores.
If the children refuse examination, should the state forcibly examine them? How would you envisage this being done?
We know that abuse victims are often unwilling to testify against their abusers. What happens if they are unwilling to do so, or if they cover up for their families?
And then there is another one. Rhondda ?
On the other hand Ilford S and Croydon N would have been Conservative on their current boundaries in 1992 yet they're both 1/200 Labour.
Asking for a friend.
Extreme coercion does not always work, indeed there are many on here who suggest that the war on drugs is best conducted by legalisation and education rather than an overtly punitive approach to drug possession.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12084846/David-Cameron-Questions-to-answer-over-Emily-Thornberrys-links-to-condemned-law-firm-Leigh-Day.html
I suspect that the reason is because this crime is "Cultural", so nobody in authority wants to go near it. We must accept that all cultures are equal and therefore some British girls can be illegally mutilated and hard luck to them, because there abusers cannot be prosecuted.
We do not rely solely on legislation and policing to prevent murder. Abhorrence for murder (at least within the tribe) is one of the strongest cultural artifacts in every civilization. For the most part, we rely on culture, not policing, to prevent murder.
So thanks, you've made my point very nicely.
'Macron = Fotherington-Thomas.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/24/rivers-fish-has-emmanuel-macron-lost-touch-reality/
https://twitter.com/mk1969/status/856472493569212416
Btw, I wasn't mocking you for your persistence with the 'Le Pen can still win' line last nite. In fact I kind of agreed with you - to the extent that I hedged my Macron bets. I did think it got a bit funny in the end though, but in a wholly admirable and enjoyable kind of way.
All clear?
Possession of drugs harms no-one - even heroin addiction itself is harmless, it's the crime associated with the need to feed the habit (which can be covered by other laws) that's the problem.
FGM scars a child for life. For life.
Coercion to prevent it happening is one side of the coin - but so is punishment after the fact.
We must send a clear and unequivocal message that this barbaric practice cannot be tolerated in our society.
And we should give the victims a chance for justice.
They're not going to bring back Lembit Opik to fight Bath - are they?
Lord Mandelson, an Open Britain board member, claimed it was counterproductive for prime minister Theresa May to enter Brexit negotiations with a rigid set of red lines, and said he believed millions of jobs were at stake.
“Election candidates of all parties should be demanding that a hard Brexit is rejected and making clear that they will reserve judgment on the outcome until they see whether we get exactly the same trade benefits, as [Brexit secretary] David Davis has promised,” he said.
In the days when he was fully compos - indeed, one of the finest political brains of the past quarter century - he would have appreciated the contradiction between the first and the second paragraphs.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/24/remain-campaigners-urge-voters-to-unseat-brexit-backing-mps
What the hell is refusing to prosecute those responsible if not tolerance of the offence? Mrs CycleFree, lady of this parish, made a very sensible suggestion the last time we had a debate about this issue - make it an absolute offence. Child found mutilated, the parents are guilty.
The problem comes whena pracice is culturally accepted, whether a kid with some weed or ancient traditions.
Even adult FGM victims are generally unwilling to imprison their own parents.
The long-term shift in the pattern of political geography in the UK is fascinating. We seem to be going through the same shift the USA did 20-odd years ago: the divide is no longer rich v poor but, for want of a better term, fashionable location v unfashionable location.
So thanks, you've made my point very nicely.
There are notices all over the walls in our local venue for ?Safe/Sure Start informing parents that "your children are your responsibility at all times".
There is an answer, I just don't like it.
hmmmm, colour me unconvinced.
BUT BUT BUT ..........
We are on the left of the political spectrum -we are PURE-only the Right has nasty Racists
I am sick and tired of hearing how candidate X Y or Z is "Hard Right" because they are Racist.
Racists, anti Semites, misogynists and homophobes occupy all parts of the political spectrum and until the Left recognise this they will be as inept at dealing with this as the Right was for far too long.
Cif Ken "Mein Kamf" Livingstone.
But, there are plenty of seats that moved in the opposite direction.