On topic, it's nice to see that conventional wisdom is catching up with the unholy alliance of Mark Senior and me. I can remember when we stood more or less alone in saying that Nick Clegg was master of his own destiny this side of a general election.
The only people calling for Clegg's head were 2010 LDs - and they are mostly all voting Labour now
I thought we'd established the 2010 "LD"s were Labour voters having a hissy fit ?
Everyone is a Labour voter apparently - some just haven't been asked by yougov yet
You are EdM* addressing 2010 Lab=>LD voters. You want them back.
Why did they switch in 2010? 1. Labour had proven themselves damaging to the country by their borrow and spend strategy. 2. They could never, ever vote Tory.
So what do you say to them? If you say "we've changed" you are endorsing Plan A. If you say "we haven't changed" you are reinforcing the reasons they deserted you. If you say "we would have done it better" you can't point to any substitute policies. If you say "you're worse off than you would have been", you have more traction. And hence, you are best to follow this path.
But it is fraught with danger especially as GO has earned the credibility to be able to bribe the electorate in early 2015 and make everyone feel more optimistic, to say nothing of the improving economic situation.
Since I saw a brief glimpse of an amusing scottish tory surger getting the tories "Cast Iron" position on Lisbon in a bit of a muddle it might be helpful to point out what it actually was.
Conservatives could hold Lisbon Treaty referendum after ratification
A Conservative government could hold a referendum on the European Union's Lisbon Treaty even if it has already been ratified, William Hague has said.
The Shadow Foreign Secretary made the pledge as David Cameron promised to fight next year's European Parliament elections on a referendum pledge.
The Lisbon Treaty, based on the old European Constitution, is currently in limbo having been rejected by Irish voters in a referendum in May. It must be endorsed by all 27 EU states to take effect.
Another Irish vote has been suggested for next year, but Mr Hague said the treaty could remain unratified at the time of the next general election, and pledged a British vote if so.
He said: "If the Lisbon treaty is unratified and on the table at the point we take office then, of course, we would hold a referendum."
And even if the Treaty had been ratified when a Tory government took office, a referendum could still be possible. He said: "We haven't made the decision," he said. "I certainly haven't ruled that out."
How about a compromise legislation? - Muslim women can cover their entire head and face but must then only wear a skimpy thong bikini underneath! That'd work wouldn't it?
O/T I do not know the reasons behind this story but Virginia Morris , Conservative councillor for East Sheen on Richmond On Thames LBC has been removed and replaced as Cabinet Member For The Environment because she intends to commence legal action ( unspecified ) against the council .
According to Guido, the L/D's are cosidering raising more tax from those earning above 50k. We are rapidly reachig the point where we will be issued with credit vouchers no pay..no cash..just vouchers. When will these bufffoons ever learn.
I have never paid more tax than under this rabble. My marginal rates are astronomical already due to the CB Tax Charge - and 50-60k in London with a family is not rich.
As I have said before, UKIP is the ultimate "F*cking for Virginity" Party. They will cause to be delivered everything that is anathema to their voters, ie Ed Miliband. But there is plenty of time for the voters to appreciate this.
Alternatively, right-wing voters might feel that one term of screwing themselves by giving Ed Miliband 2015 is worth it if it forces the Tories to make a referendum on Europe an unqualified manifesto commitment for 2020 with absolute no wiggle room. It only makes no sense if you take a one-term view.
Are people really that dumb?
Well the Tories seem to think that people are stupid enough to believe their promise to hold a referendum despite having made and broken such a promise before and under the same leader.
According to Guido, the L/D's are cosidering raising more tax from those earning above 50k. We are rapidly reachig the point where we will be issued with credit vouchers no pay..no cash..just vouchers. When will these bufffoons ever learn.
I have never paid more tax than under this rabble. My marginal rates are astronomical already due to the CB Tax Charge - and 50-60k in London with a family is not rich.
So you say BaJ, but all that's happening is the tax you should have been paying 1997-2010 has finally caught you up. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't vote for people who like to spend it.
According to Guido, the L/D's are cosidering raising more tax from those earning above 50k. We are rapidly reachig the point where we will be issued with credit vouchers no pay..no cash..just vouchers. When will these bufffoons ever learn.
I have never paid more tax than under this rabble. My marginal rates are astronomical already due to the CB Tax Charge - and 50-60k in London with a family is not rich.
So you say BaJ, but all that's happening is the tax you should have been paying 1997-2010 has finally caught you up. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't vote for people who like to spend it.
According to Guido, the L/D's are cosidering raising more tax from those earning above 50k. We are rapidly reachig the point where we will be issued with credit vouchers no pay..no cash..just vouchers. When will these bufffoons ever learn.
I have never paid more tax than under this rabble. My marginal rates are astronomical already due to the CB Tax Charge - and 50-60k in London with a family is not rich.
My credit card bill was zero during the month my wife had the card - but she gave it back and this month its huge - it must be my fault...
According to Guido, the L/D's are cosidering raising more tax from those earning above 50k. We are rapidly reachig the point where we will be issued with credit vouchers no pay..no cash..just vouchers. When will these bufffoons ever learn.
I have never paid more tax than under this rabble. My marginal rates are astronomical already due to the CB Tax Charge - and 50-60k in London with a family is not rich.
So you say BaJ, but all that's happening is the tax you should have been paying 1997-2010 has finally caught you up. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't vote for people who like to spend it.
I didn't vote for Ozzy.
No you voted for Blair and Brown and they just loved spending. If you haven't worked out that bills have to be paid at some point it's about time you did. At the end of the day it's not their money they spend it's ours and that's also where the bill ends up, with us.
According to Guido, the L/D's are cosidering raising more tax from those earning above 50k. We are rapidly reachig the point where we will be issued with credit vouchers no pay..no cash..just vouchers. When will these bufffoons ever learn.
I have never paid more tax than under this rabble. My marginal rates are astronomical already due to the CB Tax Charge - and 50-60k in London with a family is not rich.
My credit card bill was zero during the month my wife had the card - but she gave it back and this month its huge - it must be my fault...
Are you suggesting that under Labour, taxes would be lower, or would they just be lower for people like yourself?
Whilst I have some sympathy with restrictions (note, not banning) of facial coverings in certain circumstances, such as Courts, what the hell is the idea that it should be banned in public places? I thought you righties were libertarian? How far do you want to go? Is it just the Muslim veil that upsets you? What about cyclists wearing bandanas when its cold? Children wrapped up in snorkel parkas in winter, you banning them? Teenage lads in hoodies? I hear an amazing argument that people feel intimidated by veiled women in public, it's alien, not pleasant to look at, not part of our culture. There are plenty of things I find disturbing to look at on the streets, but Muslim women ain't one of 'em.
The niqab and burqa are gross, obtrusive symbols of a misogynistic religious culture which, even in Britain, has troubles with forced marriages, honour killings (of women), female genital mutilation, racist sexual grooming and racist child rape.
In that light, if you don't find these all-over body shrouds worn by fundamentalist Muslim women in any way disturbing, I suggest you are a stupid, insensitive idiot.
Why not ban those cultures, then? Banning the burka won't stop any of that. If you won't ban them, I'd suggest you're a stupid, headline chasing journo.
On the niqab and burqa, of course the idea that these should be banned is an absolute abomination. It's not up to the state to tell people what they can wear, subject only to public decency. If nuns want to wear funny clothes, or ladies who feel cold want to wrap up so that only their eyes are visible, then fine; it's a free country, and the same is true of ladies who might want to wear a burqa in this country of liberty,
BUT - we need to be consistent. If we're to be a country of liberty, we must be a country of liberty, and if any shopkeeper wants to set a dress code which customers must meet, then that's also fine. So the shopkeeper can insist you don't wear shorts, or don't wear a hood, or don't wear a motor-cycle helmet if you want to come into his shop, and that's fine. If you don't like it, don't go into his shop. No rights are violated by letting a shopkeeper insist on a dress code; you the customer are free to go elsewhere, or alternatively free to comply. Up to you.
The massive mistake we've made as a society is to lose sight of the second half of this aspect of liberty - because if you're a shopkeeper and disallow people wearing burqas from entering your shop, you'll be accused of racism.
Whilst I have some sympathy with restrictions (note, not banning) of facial coverings in certain circumstances, such as Courts, what the hell is the idea that it should be banned in public places? I thought you righties were libertarian? How far do you want to go? Is it just the Muslim veil that upsets you? What about cyclists wearing bandanas when its cold? Children wrapped up in snorkel parkas in winter, you banning them? Teenage lads in hoodies? I hear an amazing argument that people feel intimidated by veiled women in public, it's alien, not pleasant to look at, not part of our culture. There are plenty of things I find disturbing to look at on the streets, but Muslim women ain't one of 'em.
The niqab and burqa are gross, obtrusive symbols of a misogynistic religious culture which, even in Britain, has troubles with forced marriages, honour killings (of women), female genital mutilation, racist sexual grooming and racist child rape.
In that light, if you don't find these all-over body shrouds worn by fundamentalist Muslim women in any way disturbing, I suggest you are a stupid, insensitive idiot.
Why not ban those cultures, then? Banning the burka won't stop any of that. If you won't ban them, I'd suggest you're a stupid, headline chasing journo.
Also to add, I'm all for banning religion. Would make the country a much happier place, none of that stupid sky pixie/imaginary friend business of whispering things in gullible ears.
On the niqab and burqa, of course the idea that these should be banned is an absolute abomination. It's not up to the state to tell people what they can wear, subject only to public decency. If nuns want to wear funny clothes, or ladies who feel cold want to wrap up so that only their eyes are visible, then fine; it's a free country, and the same is true of ladies who might want to wear a burqa in this country of liberty,
BUT - we need to be consistent. If we're to be a country of liberty, we must be a country of liberty, and if any shopkeeper wants to set a dress code which customers must meet, then that's also fine. So the shopkeeper can insist you don't wear shorts, or don't wear a hood, or don't wear a motor-cycle helmet if you want to come into his shop, and that's fine. If you don't like it, don't go into his shop. No rights are violated by letting a shopkeeper insist on a dress code; you the customer are free to go elsewhere, or alternatively free to comply. Up to you.
The massive mistake we've made as a society is to lose sight of the second half of this aspect of liberty - because if you're a shopkeeper and disallow people wearing burqas from entering your shop, you'll be accused of racism.
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Yes, why on earth not? I wouldn't recommend it as a business model, and I might personally hold such a shopkeeper in contempt, but what's the difference between that and a smart restaurant disallowing customers wearing dirty jeans and muddy boots?
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Yes, why on earth not? I wouldn't recommend it as a business model, and I might personally hold such a shopkeeper in contempt, but what's the difference between that and a smart restaurant disallowing customers wearing dirty jeans and muddy boots?
We're back to the B&B banning mixed race couples argument.
We're back to the B&B banning mixed race couples argument.
We are, and we always will be. Live and let live is my view, which has the great merit of consistency. This micro-managing of which prejudices are allowed and which are disallowed by the law is bonkers.
As I have said before, UKIP is the ultimate "F*cking for Virginity" Party. They will cause to be delivered everything that is anathema to their voters, ie Ed Miliband. But there is plenty of time for the voters to appreciate this.
Alternatively, right-wing voters might feel that one term of screwing themselves by giving Ed Miliband 2015 is worth it if it forces the Tories to make a referendum on Europe an unqualified manifesto commitment for 2020 with absolute no wiggle room. It only makes no sense if you take a one-term view.
Are people really that dumb?
Well the Tories seem to think that people are stupid enough to believe their promise to hold a referendum despite having made and broken such a promise before and under the same leader.
Are you one of those people who think it's intelligent to spend money to hold a referendum on a treaty after it's been ratified?
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Shopkeepers should have the right to have people show their face in the shop - the security argument trumps individual freedom in this case, be that asking the customer to remove a motorcycle helmet, burka or having the hood on a top 'down'.
So is it OK for someone to walk past a school in full S&M gear in daylight? Is it OK for someone to walk around Golders Green in a swastika tee-shirt and jackboots? Is it OK for white people to wear Ku Klux Klan hoods in Brixton?
It may not be OK, but that's not the same as saying that it is, or should be, illegal. Big difference.
In any case no-one is suggesting that ladies wear a burqa because they want to provoke offence or start a violent affray, which would be the objection to your second and third examples.
Whilst I have some sympathy with restrictions (note, not banning) of facial coverings in certain circumstances, such as Courts, what the hell is the idea that it should be banned in public places? I thought you righties were libertarian? How far do you want to go? Is it just the Muslim veil that upsets you? What about cyclists wearing bandanas when its cold? Children wrapped up in snorkel parkas in winter, you banning them? Teenage lads in hoodies? I hear an amazing argument that people feel intimidated by veiled women in public, it's alien, not pleasant to look at, not part of our culture. There are plenty of things I find disturbing to look at on the streets, but Muslim women ain't one of 'em.
The niqab and burqa are gross, obtrusive symbols of a misogynistic religious culture which, even in Britain, has troubles with forced marriages, honour killings (of women), female genital mutilation, racist sexual grooming and racist child rape.
In that light, if you don't find these all-over body shrouds worn by fundamentalist Muslim women in any way disturbing, I suggest you are a stupid, insensitive idiot.
Why not ban those cultures, then? Banning the burka won't stop any of that. If you won't ban them, I'd suggest you're a stupid, headline chasing journo.
I never said we should "ban the burqa". Go on - try and find that in my comments today. I have said the burqa is disturbingly emblematic of Islamic misogyny - which it clearly is - and anyone who cannot see this is either an idiot or a liar. Perhaps you are both. Dunno.
I'm both, on occasions. Depends how the mood takes me. I obviously can't find any comment from you on banning today, you're much too clever for that. What do you suggest, though? If the full body veil is so evil, symbolising such an evil , misogynistic religious culture, what do you want to happen? Personally, I'm not bothered at all by the burka, in as much that I find religion, any religion amusing. You'll now tell me that I'll die younger, have a crap sex life, be grumpier, have a small penis, and be less intelligent than someone who has got an imaginary friend. I'll get over it
So is it OK for someone to walk past a school in full S&M gear in daylight? Is it OK for someone to walk around Golders Green in a swastika tee-shirt and jackboots? Is it OK for white people to wear Ku Klux Klan hoods in Brixton?
Why would it not be OK to walk past a school in bondage gear? I think you'd find that - so long as your genitalia was not on full display - that absolutely nothing would happen. (That's not quite true: if you were outside your average secondary school in Camden, you could reasonably expect to have a massive amount of piss taken out of you.)
If you want to walkthrough Golders Green in a swatstika T-shirt and jackboots, I think you'd probably find you'd be OK too. I mean, you'd probably get into a fight and get the crap beaten out of you, and you'd probably find the police curiously unsympathetic. But - while you might be guitly of actions likely to disturb the peace - I suspect you wouldn't be in any trouble for your sartorial stupidity.
And I think much the same is true of your choice of hoody in Brixton.
If you want we can have a small wager. You go to Brixton in a KKK outfit, and if the police bother you, I'll give you a tenner. If it's anyone else, then you give me the tenner. Actually, skip that, you can keep the tenner. I'm generous like that.
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Yes, why on earth not? I wouldn't recommend it as a business model, and I might personally hold such a shopkeeper in contempt, but what's the difference between that and a smart restaurant disallowing customers wearing dirty jeans and muddy boots?
Who has a religious faith that obliges them to wear dirty jeans and muddy boots while out in public?
That's a fairly crucial difference, I would have thought.
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Yes, why on earth not? I wouldn't recommend it as a business model, and I might personally hold such a shopkeeper in contempt, but what's the difference between that and a smart restaurant disallowing customers wearing dirty jeans and muddy boots?
Who has a religious faith that obliges them to wear dirty jeans and muddy boots while out in public?
That's a fairly crucial difference, I would have thought.
I have a religious faith that requires me to wear a motorcycle helmet when I go into a shop, or a bank.
As I have said before, UKIP is the ultimate "F*cking for Virginity" Party. They will cause to be delivered everything that is anathema to their voters, ie Ed Miliband. But there is plenty of time for the voters to appreciate this.
Alternatively, right-wing voters might feel that one term of screwing themselves by giving Ed Miliband 2015 is worth it if it forces the Tories to make a referendum on Europe an unqualified manifesto commitment for 2020 with absolute no wiggle room. It only makes no sense if you take a one-term view.
Are people really that dumb?
Well the Tories seem to think that people are stupid enough to believe their promise to hold a referendum despite having made and broken such a promise before and under the same leader.
Are you one of those people who think it's intelligent to spend money to hold a referendum on a treaty after it's been ratified?
No, I'm one of the people who think it's unintelligent to promise a referendum you know won't occur, and then expect people to trust you make a similar promise shortly afterwards. The Lisbon Referendum was never going to happen, but the promise means people quite reasonably doubt the 2018 Referendum promise.
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Yes, why on earth not? I wouldn't recommend it as a business model, and I might personally hold such a shopkeeper in contempt, but what's the difference between that and a smart restaurant disallowing customers wearing dirty jeans and muddy boots?
Who has a religious faith that obliges them to wear dirty jeans and muddy boots while out in public?
That's a fairly crucial difference, I would have thought.
I have a religious faith that requires me to wear a motorcycle helmet when I go into a shop, or a bank.
With regards to the recognition of faiths, if you do not have a sufficient number of fellow adherents society has found itself comfortable with deeming you a bit mad, rather than religious, despite the logical inconsistencies.
I'm happy to go with that, and dismiss your claim to a motorcycle helmet wearing faith.
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Yes, why on earth not? I wouldn't recommend it as a business model, and I might personally hold such a shopkeeper in contempt, but what's the difference between that and a smart restaurant disallowing customers wearing dirty jeans and muddy boots?
Who has a religious faith that obliges them to wear dirty jeans and muddy boots while out in public?
That's a fairly crucial difference, I would have thought.
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Yes, why on earth not? I wouldn't recommend it as a business model, and I might personally hold such a shopkeeper in contempt, but what's the difference between that and a smart restaurant disallowing customers wearing dirty jeans and muddy boots?
Who has a religious faith that obliges them to wear dirty jeans and muddy boots while out in public?
That's a fairly crucial difference, I would have thought.
I have a religious faith that requires me to wear a motorcycle helmet when I go into a shop, or a bank.
Who has a religious faith that obliges them to wear dirty jeans and muddy boots while out in public?
That's a fairly crucial difference, I would have thought.
It's only crucial because you've chosen to make it crucial in the hierarchy of rights which you want to set up. Why should an atheist care a toss what a muslim, Sikh or Christian monk wants to wear, and vice versa? It's up to them, and, conversely, if he wants to visit a mosque, gurdwara or monastery, then as a matter of courtesy he should respect the rules of the place and can have no objection if he's not allowed in because his dress is considered offensive.
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Yes, why on earth not? I wouldn't recommend it as a business model, and I might personally hold such a shopkeeper in contempt, but what's the difference between that and a smart restaurant disallowing customers wearing dirty jeans and muddy boots?
Who has a religious faith that obliges them to wear dirty jeans and muddy boots while out in public?
That's a fairly crucial difference, I would have thought.
On a pedantic note: Is it not SM rather than S&M? SadoMasochism as opposed to Sado and Masochism?
Oblitus - a religious faith that obliges... I think you lost me at that point. Religion is itself a matter of choice. If you don't eat pork or want to wear a turban or whatever - that's a choice.
You want a shopkeeper to have the right to ban turbans, kippahs or crucifixes?
Banks have a right to ask people to remove motorcycle helmets.
Only because of a history of armed robberies. The niqab and its wearers are not analogous.
I'd like to see the stats on robberies carried out by burka clad suspects.
"Matthew Carrozo said he heard a moped crashing just under a mile away from Selfridges and saw one man dressed in full motorcycle gear while a second man dressed in a burka fell on to the ground."
“The person who was actually in charge of family policy amongst the ministerial team at the DfE was Sarah Teather. Which was a bit difficult because she doesn’t really believe in family. She certainly didn’t produce one of her own. So it became a bit of a family-free zone. I think that is a huge disappointment,” he said.
"I You'll now tell me that I'll die younger, have a crap sex life, be grumpier, have a small penis, and be less intelligent than someone who has got an imaginary friend. I'll get over it"
We've actually had this debate before. And my conclusion then was the same as it is now.
Courtrooms, schools, hospitals, other public realms (especially the first two) SHOULD be allowed to prohibit full face covering (likewise places where security is an issue: borders, banks).
In all other cases, people should be allowed to wear what they like. However, what we are missing, what we have lost: is the full force of social disapproval. Society needs to send out signals to fundamentalist Muslims in this country that, while we may just about tolerate these horrible clothes, we find them repellent and alien as a nation (and all polls show that we do).
Eventually, if they have any decency, they will cease being so antisocial. And that's all it is. Antisocial behaviour. It's like me going to a conservative Muslim country and conspicuously necking lunchtime beers during Ramadan. They may permit it, but I am being egregiously offensive and antisocial.
We're in agreement, then. Sensible restrictions in certain places, otherwise, fill yer boots in public places.
England on course for the mother of all shellackings at Aegas Bowl.
Aussies 202/3 After 30 overs.
Feel sorry for the England supporters who have forked out 60quid plus to freeze their nuts watching England C.
After the Ashes, I just can't summon any enthusiasm for this one day series. Why on earth don't they play the limited overs matches first like they used to do?
I agree the wearing of the burqa in court, schools and other public facilities where security and facial reaction is vital should be banned.
However does full muslim dress without the veil deserve our aprobrium. Do we look upon nuns with equal disfavour ?
Full Muslim dress without the face-covering is fine by me. I don't particularly like it (especially the shroudy things, they seem depressing) but maybe they find my taste in expensive Barker brogues mixed with Paul Smith jeans depressingly like Jeremy Clarkson.
No, it's the covering of the face which is the issue; and which turns bleak but acceptable dress into something much more dehumanising, antisocial - and, yes, threatening. Small kids find this stuff upsetting. Why can't I see her face? What is she hiding?
If you need any fashion advice, I'm your man, my tastes in shoes alone is unparalleled.
I agree the wearing of the burqa in court, schools and other public facilities where security and facial reaction is vital should be banned.
However does full muslim dress without the veil deserve our aprobrium. Do we look upon nuns with equal disfavour ?
Nuns don't fully cover their face. I have no problem with women wearing a head scarf at all, and no one should..
Exactly my point.
I wonder whether part of this of problem is the colour black. A brighter or multi coloured face uncovered body outfit would seem less threatening and austere ?
"I You'll now tell me that I'll die younger, have a crap sex life, be grumpier, have a small penis, and be less intelligent than someone who has got an imaginary friend. I'll get over it"
We've actually had this debate before. And my conclusion then was the same as it is now.
Courtrooms, schools, hospitals, other public realms (especially the first two) SHOULD be allowed to prohibit full face covering (likewise places where security is an issue: borders, banks).
In all other cases, people should be allowed to wear what they like. However, what we are missing, what we have lost: is the full force of social disapproval. Society needs to send out signals to fundamentalist Muslims in this country that, while we may just about tolerate these horrible clothes, we find them repellent and alien as a nation (and all polls show that we do).
Eventually, if they have any decency, they will cease being so antisocial. And that's all it is. Antisocial behaviour. It's like me going to a conservative Muslim country and conspicuously necking lunchtime beers during Ramadan. They may permit it, but I am being egregiously offensive and antisocial.
So how does this one fit in the great patchwork of things ? Two white blokes doing a fun run for charity in Birmingham dressed in mankinis pelted by stones and needed a police escort through a muslim area.
I agree the wearing of the burqa in court, schools and other public facilities where security and facial reaction is vital should be banned.
However does full muslim dress without the veil deserve our aprobrium. Do we look upon nuns with equal disfavour ?
Full Muslim dress without the face-covering is fine by me. I don't particularly like it (especially the shroudy things, they seem depressing) but maybe they find my taste in expensive Barker brogues mixed with Paul Smith jeans depressingly like Jeremy Clarkson.
No, it's the covering of the face which is the issue; and which turns bleak but acceptable dress into something much more dehumanising, antisocial - and, yes, threatening. Small kids find this stuff upsetting. Why can't I see her face? What is she hiding?
@dylsharpe: Big naughty of Treasury to announce Lloyds shares sell off during Lib Dem conference? At least save it until Miliband's speech next week...
@JGForsyth: Sale of Lloyds shares boost to Tory message that they’re ‘clearing up Labour’s mess’ and that the UK is now moving from ‘rescue to recovery’
"Muslim women can cover their entire head and face but must then only wear a skimpy thong bikini underneath! That'd work wouldn't it? "
About seven years ago in Ulcinj (Montengro, near the Albanian border), we were sunbathing on the beach in 30 degree temperatures when we saw a Muslim couple come onto the sand. He was wearing typical Montenegrin clothes and she was dressed in a full burkha.
"She must be boiling," I said to my wife.
The burkha-clad lady then stripped off to reveal a tiny yellow bikini before bouncing (she was somewhat buxom) into the sea.
"I think Osama might struggle with this group," I said.
Not to me or the many many people around the world who have been injured or killed or oppressed as a result of it, including - alas - very many many Muslim women and girls who are often - as in Canada - the most vociferous opponents of sharia law and those seeking to push them into a Muslim female ghetto.
Difficult to laugh at such an ideology when its adherents' first response is, too often, violence or the threat of it.
I agree the wearing of the burqa in court, schools and other public facilities where security and facial reaction is vital should be banned.
However does full muslim dress without the veil deserve our aprobrium. Do we look upon nuns with equal disfavour ?
Full Muslim dress without the face-covering is fine by me. I don't particularly like it (especially the shroudy things, they seem depressing) but maybe they find my taste in expensive Barker brogues mixed with Paul Smith jeans depressingly like Jeremy Clarkson.
No, it's the covering of the face which is the issue; and which turns bleak but acceptable dress into something much more dehumanising, antisocial - and, yes, threatening. Small kids find this stuff upsetting. Why can't I see her face? What is she hiding?
If you need any fashion advice, I'm your man, my tastes in shoes alone is unparalleled.
Actually, I've totally killed the shoes thing. I've actually had non-gay men come up to me in pubs and compliment me on my shoes (they were a £400 pair of Barkers centenary oxblood brogues with an incredible patina)
It's just everywhere above the ankle that I tend to look slovenly. I do have one decent half-canvassed Hugo Boss suit. Quite the cut. Apart from that I am indeed, sartorially, sub-Jeremy Clarkson (as in so many other ways).
Not to me or the many many people around the world who have been injured or killed or oppressed as a result of it, including - alas - very many many Muslim women and girls who are often - as in Canada - the most vociferous opponents of sharia law and those seeking to push them into a Muslim female ghetto.
Difficult to laugh at such an ideology when its adherents' first response is, too often, violence or the threat of it.
I wonder whether part of this of problem is the colour black. A brighter or multi coloured face uncovered body outfit would seem less threatening and austere ?
Union Jack patterned burqas would satisfy everyone.
One of the more unlikely sights that I have seen in Budapest was an Arab man in full flowing robes with what I presume was his wife in full burka going into a sex shop.
""The government actually bought the shares at an average price of 73.6p during Lloyds' £20.3bn bailout at the height of the financial crisis, but the average market price at the time was 61p."
I wonder whether part of this of problem is the colour black. A brighter or multi coloured face uncovered body outfit would seem less threatening and austere ?
Union Jack patterned burqas would satisfy everyone.
Why are we on here, discussing boring politics and burkas, when that bastion of virtue, that tireless crusader against online porn and objectifying women, the Daily Mail, has 5, count 'em, 5, pictures of Susanna Reid flashing her knickers on the breakfast sofa.
I wonder whether part of this of problem is the colour black. A brighter or multi coloured face uncovered body outfit would seem less threatening and austere ?
Union Jack patterned burqas would satisfy everyone.
Not in Norn Irn.
Don't be ridiculous tim, there's nothing Norn Irn enjoys more than a flag fight. It would give everyone something to find pleasure in.
One of the more unlikely sights that I have seen in Budapest was an Arab man in full flowing robes with what I presume was his wife in full burka going into a sex shop.
I once dressed up like the outfit in the link below, and visited the Village in Manchester
I wonder whether part of this of problem is the colour black. A brighter or multi coloured face uncovered body outfit would seem less threatening and austere ?
Union Jack patterned burqas would satisfy everyone.
Not in Norn Irn.
For the northern Irish market, you need something more niche:
I wonder whether part of this of problem is the colour black. A brighter or multi coloured face uncovered body outfit would seem less threatening and austere ?
Union Jack patterned burqas would satisfy everyone.
Visit Your Local Burqa Shop - Wear Black Is The New Black
In contrast the full sari is offered in a riot of different colours and barely a soul blinks an eye-lid ?!?
""The government actually bought the shares at an average price of 73.6p during Lloyds' £20.3bn bailout at the height of the financial crisis, but the average market price at the time was 61p."
Doubt much profit coming on this tranche...
6% at £3.3bn implies a sale price of 77p, netting a profit of £150m on the sale. The only way is up for LLOY, I've been in since 44p!
Why are we on here, discussing boring politics and burkas, when that bastion of virtue, that tireless crusader against online porn and objectifying women, the Daily Mail, has 5, count 'em, 5, pictures of Susanna Reid flashing her knickers on the breakfast sofa.
BBC were singing Clegg's praises this morning too. It's interesting against that backdrop how out of touch Cable sounds. Interesting too that he obviously has such strong loyalty to Clegg that he's agreed to shut up where it really matters.
Nearer 2015 I do think that Clegg may make some sort of open house gesture so that the LDs are seen as open for business with whoever they may find holds the majority. However in the meantime he's pretty clearly trying to get on with being part of a (hopefully) successful government. (I'm aware of the nasty echoes of Brown's 'getting on with the job' in the previous sentence - to be honest I briefly considered suicide on the basis of that, but thought it was an over-reaction.)
Also of interest is Michael Moore positioned on the last day.
I wonder whether part of this of problem is the colour black. A brighter or multi coloured face uncovered body outfit would seem less threatening and austere ?
Union Jack patterned burqas would satisfy everyone.
Not in Norn Irn.
For the northern Irish market, you need something more niche:
I wonder whether part of this of problem is the colour black. A brighter or multi coloured face uncovered body outfit would seem less threatening and austere ?
Union Jack patterned burqas would satisfy everyone.
Not in Norn Irn.
For the northern Irish market, you need something more niche:
Am I a bad man, if I were to suggest that it be mandatory for some women to wear the burqa?
I'm thinking the sort of ladies you see on the Jeremy Kyle Show.
Not at all Mr Eagles, sometimes it has its place, I've always assumed ladies wearing Burqas had better beards than their husbands and didn't want to embarass them.
Comments
Why did they switch in 2010?
1. Labour had proven themselves damaging to the country by their borrow and spend strategy.
2. They could never, ever vote Tory.
So what do you say to them?
If you say "we've changed" you are endorsing Plan A. If you say "we haven't changed" you are reinforcing the reasons they deserted you. If you say "we would have done it better" you can't point to any substitute policies. If you say "you're worse off than you would have been", you have more traction. And hence, you are best to follow this path.
But it is fraught with danger especially as GO has earned the credibility to be able to bribe the electorate in early 2015 and make everyone feel more optimistic, to say nothing of the improving economic situation.
*No offence, for illustration purposes only.
Nearby school also in lockdown the washington post is reporting.
Cable is 70 years of age and today he looked it. Frankly he's now too old to be a major threat.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/16/voters-turn-against-pygmy-politics/
2015 - lowest turnout ever?
I do not know the reasons behind this story but
Virginia Morris , Conservative councillor for East Sheen on Richmond On Thames LBC has been removed and replaced as Cabinet Member For The Environment because she intends to commence legal action ( unspecified ) against the council .
My error. This was intended to Baj.
BUT - we need to be consistent. If we're to be a country of liberty, we must be a country of liberty, and if any shopkeeper wants to set a dress code which customers must meet, then that's also fine. So the shopkeeper can insist you don't wear shorts, or don't wear a hood, or don't wear a motor-cycle helmet if you want to come into his shop, and that's fine. If you don't like it, don't go into his shop. No rights are violated by letting a shopkeeper insist on a dress code; you the customer are free to go elsewhere, or alternatively free to comply. Up to you.
The massive mistake we've made as a society is to lose sight of the second half of this aspect of liberty - because if you're a shopkeeper and disallow people wearing burqas from entering your shop, you'll be accused of racism.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/burqa-for-lady-liberty-and-mosque-for.html
http://order-order.com/2013/09/16/tory-mp-demands-investigation-into-teresa-villiers-lobbyist-lunchasks-heywood-if-she-broke-ministerial-code-as-transport-minister/
Con MP reports former Transport Minister.
In any case no-one is suggesting that ladies wear a burqa because they want to provoke offence or start a violent affray, which would be the objection to your second and third examples.
Personally, I'm not bothered at all by the burka, in as much that I find religion, any religion amusing.
You'll now tell me that I'll die younger, have a crap sex life, be grumpier, have a small penis, and be less intelligent than someone who has got an imaginary friend. I'll get over it
If you want to walkthrough Golders Green in a swatstika T-shirt and jackboots, I think you'd probably find you'd be OK too. I mean, you'd probably get into a fight and get the crap beaten out of you, and you'd probably find the police curiously unsympathetic. But - while you might be guitly of actions likely to disturb the peace - I suspect you wouldn't be in any trouble for your sartorial stupidity.
And I think much the same is true of your choice of hoody in Brixton.
If you want we can have a small wager. You go to Brixton in a KKK outfit, and if the police bother you, I'll give you a tenner. If it's anyone else, then you give me the tenner. Actually, skip that, you can keep the tenner. I'm generous like that.
That's a fairly crucial difference, I would have thought.
And you accuse me of talking bollocks.
I'm happy to go with that, and dismiss your claim to a motorcycle helmet wearing faith.
Oblitus - a religious faith that obliges... I think you lost me at that point. Religion is itself a matter of choice. If you don't eat pork or want to wear a turban or whatever - that's a choice.
There is nothing remotely amusing about the ideology behind those who want women to wear the burqa.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10308793/Civilised-society-must-not-draw-a-veil-over-the-niqab.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8665873.stm
A man wearing a niqab face veil has robbed a security guard outside a bank in Birmingham.
Many more examples from around the world as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24113376
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22811466
Anecdotal - yes but it can and does happen, a burka is as good as a motorcycle helmet to cover your identity with if you're on the rob.
Tim Loughton on Sarah Teather
“The person who was actually in charge of family policy amongst the ministerial team at the DfE was Sarah Teather. Which was a bit difficult because she doesn’t really believe in family. She certainly didn’t produce one of her own. So it became a bit of a family-free zone. I think that is a huge disappointment,” he said.
http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2013/09/former-tory-minister-in-astonishing-attack-on-former-colleague-sarah-teather/
Aussies 202/3 After 30 overs.
Feel sorry for the England supporters who have forked out 60quid plus to freeze their nuts watching England C.
I agree the wearing of the burqa in court, schools and other public facilities where security and facial reaction is vital should be banned.
However does full muslim dress without the veil deserve our aprobrium. Do we look upon nuns with equal disfavour ?
I wonder whether part of this of problem is the colour black. A brighter or multi coloured face uncovered body outfit would seem less threatening and austere ?
http://www.solihullobserver.co.uk/2013/09/10/news-dogs-home-charity-mankini-ellis-hendry-edl-muslim-pelted-stones-sparkbrook-80624.html
NURSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.ft.com/fastft
@JGForsyth: Sale of Lloyds shares boost to Tory message that they’re ‘clearing up Labour’s mess’ and that the UK is now moving from ‘rescue to recovery’
It'd only be fourth rate if Jade Dernbach was playing.
Christ, how bad would the carnage be today, if Jade was playing.
"Muslim women can cover their entire head and face but must then only wear a skimpy thong bikini underneath! That'd work wouldn't it? "
About seven years ago in Ulcinj (Montengro, near the Albanian border), we were sunbathing on the beach in 30 degree temperatures when we saw a Muslim couple come onto the sand. He was wearing typical Montenegrin clothes and she was dressed in a full burkha.
"She must be boiling," I said to my wife.
The burkha-clad lady then stripped off to reveal a tiny yellow bikini before bouncing (she was somewhat buxom) into the sea.
"I think Osama might struggle with this group," I said.
Difficult to laugh at such an ideology when its adherents' first response is, too often, violence or the threat of it.
No more to be sold for further 90 days.
I don't think it is political reasons - other than the share price reflects how much better the economy is performing than it was under Labour.
Jade Dernbach, the Crystal Swing of the cricket world.
I would argue so.
WILL THE WINNER LOSE? Thursday 30th April 2015, 22:00
Effect Of Electoral Bias
Singles Only. Applies to the BBC confirmed seat and vote numbers following the next general election.
Labour to poll more votes & win more seats than Conservatives 11/8
Labour to poll fewer votes and win more seats than Conservatives 7/4
Conservatives to poll more votes and win more seats than Labour 2/1
Conservatives to poll fewer votes and win more seats than Labour 33/1 Top
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1313367
Doubt much profit coming on this tranche...
http://www.utsavsarees.org/TCJ/TCJ85/TCJ85_large.jpg
http://image.artfact.com/housePhotos/DreweattNeate/45/313845/H0442-L30745608.jpg
In contrast the full sari is offered in a riot of different colours and barely a soul blinks an eye-lid ?!?
I'm thinking the sort of ladies you see on the Jeremy Kyle Show.
Shocking that you didn't post a link.....
BBC were singing Clegg's praises this morning too. It's interesting against that backdrop how out of touch Cable sounds. Interesting too that he obviously has such strong loyalty to Clegg that he's agreed to shut up where it really matters.
Nearer 2015 I do think that Clegg may make some sort of open house gesture so that the LDs are seen as open for business with whoever they may find holds the majority. However in the meantime he's pretty clearly trying to get on with being part of a (hopefully) successful government. (I'm aware of the nasty echoes of Brown's 'getting on with the job' in the previous sentence - to be honest I briefly considered suicide on the basis of that, but thought it was an over-reaction.)
Also of interest is Michael Moore positioned on the last day.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_northern_ireland_flag.svg