Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The updated Wikipedia polling table for next week’s Euros
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The updated Wikipedia polling table for next week’s Euros
What is very marked is the high level of variation between the firm’s most recent surveys.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
> @Roger said:
> > @williamglenn said:
> > https://twitter.com/trevorbmbagency/status/1128244202117185536
Do you think Trevor meant 'mocked' or 'mocked up'. If the latter I hope he's ashamed of himself!
(For those who don't know TB he's a well known art director known for ads such as 'flying pigs' 'Fagin' and FCUK and among others.)
"Only the LibDems can deliver Remainer MEPs" or some such.
It's odd that those who rail against descriptions of Leave voters as naive, ill informed suckers, yet think those same Leavers are the type of folk who will vote a particular way because there's a big fat arrow pointing to a box. Perhaps if (as we're constantly assured) the bolshy, contrarian nature of the British voter is an actual thing, the arrow should be pointing in the opposite direction.
https://youtu.be/1KaQ3rB2BxQ
I see that Ska is running again as the Gree candidate. Would be a vast improvement on Rude Boy Juncker.
(Yes I know, I made a similar gag 5 years ago...)
It shouldnt have been allowed but equally it is not going to have any significant impact and those criticising it add fuel to the supposed anti-establishment rationale for the Brexit Party far more than they are protecting fair voting.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6h3ABuW0AAk5IV?format=jpg&name=large
Big picture of Jezza on the front. The message is to ignore Brexit, vote on domestic issues and send a message to the Tories.
> Interesting to note that TBP leaflets had the cross in the box to the *left* of their logo, so they were clearly waiting for the ballot papers to get printed before the subliminal messaging was noticed. Genius.
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6h3ABuW0AAk5IV?format=jpg&name=large
I think you credit their designers with too much insight. When you asked me what I thought of the logo I said 'it worked well as an instruction. Rather like a traffic light'. That it points to the box with the X is unlikely to be more than a happy accident and not foersight on the part of the designer. Trevor Beattie seems to agree in that he didn't spot the connection.
None the less some of the most awarded ads have also been 'happy accidents' (and some unhappy accidents like Beatties 'Flying Pigs' poster)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/05/16/10/13565966-7034355-image-m-6_1557997638068.jpg
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="JosiasJessop"><blockquote class="Quote" rel="Nigelb">contd.
<i>
(Snip)
• Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
• Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
• Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying Muslim populations the right to self- determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of
an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.
• Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, eg loyalty tests.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
• Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic....</i></blockquote>
Thanks, that's very useful. Some of those are reasonable IMO; others less so. for example: "• Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims." would seem to give Muslim majority states the ability to invent or exaggerate cases of Islamaphobia without being able to criticise them.
or:
"• Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies." would hopefully not disallow criticism of ISIS wrt (say) the Syrian Assyrian population or the Yazidis, or of criticising the grooming gangs (though IMO that's more a cultural event than a religious one).
As ever, a massive problem is when people take things done by some of a group and say that the whole group are like it. "Some Muslims are terrorists," is mostly a reasonable comment. "All Muslims are terrorists," is not. </blockquote>
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c3d2febbd1a90cffdd8a9/t/5bfd1ea3352f531a6170ceee/1543315109493/Islamophobia+Defined.pdf
<i>ISLAMOPHOBIA IS ROOTED IN RACISM AND IS A TYPE OF RACISM THAT TARGETS EXPRESSIONS OF MUSLIMNESS OR PERCEIVED MUSLIMNESS.
The proposed definition of Islamophobia can be illustrated by a range of guidelines and examples rather than a list of essential features, which we feel would confine a prescriptiveness to its understanding to the detriment of contextual and fluid factors which continue to inform and shape manifestations of Islamophobia.
We found the IHRA explanatory notes and examples both helpful and informative and it inspired much of the thinking of Parliamentarians engaged in this process of proposing a working definition of Islamophobia. The explanatory notes provided under the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism could, in all fairness, be adopted in their entirety to Islamophobia.
Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include...</i>
> I'm not at all happy with that arrow in the BP logo. It's pointing straight at the box where you mark your cross. It is more or less TELLING you to put your cross there, i.e. to vote for the BP. Now OK, most people will not be impacted but there is no doubt that some will. It's probably going to be worth around 5% and that could quite easily swing the election, which in turn could affect the future of the country. If we end up crashing out of the EU without a deal because of a design flaw on the ballot paper that would be utterly egregious.
5%!
Maybe 1 in 1000 of those decided on who to vote for might be impacted, if they were drunk or otherwise incapacitated
Maybe 1 in 100 waverers who were not considering Brexit
Maybe 5% of those where Brexit was a possibility but not a choice
There is no chance of 5% overall. And there are other subliminal advantages on the ballot, i.e. being at the top, what colours you choose for the logo that are probably not in their favour.
> I'm not at all happy with that arrow in the BP logo. It's pointing straight at the box where you mark your cross. It is more or less TELLING you to put your cross there, i.e. to vote for the BP. Now OK, most people will not be impacted but there is no doubt that some will. It's probably going to be worth around 5% and that could quite easily swing the election, which in turn could affect the future of the country. If we end up crashing out of the EU without a deal because of a design flaw on the ballot paper that would be utterly egregious.
Titter.
Next election all the parties can have an arrow - no doubt Corbyn's will be pointing left.
> I've received a Labour leaflet! Not addressed, but came with the post, so it looks like the party is paying Royal Mail to pop them through letter boxes along with the latest offers from Lidl.
>
> Big picture of Jezza on the front. The message is to ignore Brexit, vote on domestic issues and send a message to the Tories.
Someone posted an interview with Ed M yesterday where he repeated the same convoluted line three times using exactly the same words. He sounded like an out of control robot. It s easy to forget that one of the reasons for Corbyn's popularity was the comparison with what went before
https://twitter.com/darrenpjones/status/1128947914305355776
> (FPT)
> <blockquote class="Quote" rel="JosiasJessop"><blockquote class="Quote" rel="Nigelb">contd.
> <i>
> (Snip)
>
> • Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
> • Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
> • Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
> • Denying Muslim populations the right to self- determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of
> an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.
> • Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, eg loyalty tests.
> • Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
> • Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic....</i></blockquote>
>
> Thanks, that's very useful. Some of those are reasonable IMO; others less so. for example: "• Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims." would seem to give Muslim majority states the ability to invent or exaggerate cases of Islamaphobia without being able to criticise them.
>
> or:
>
> "• Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies." would hopefully not disallow criticism of ISIS wrt (say) the Syrian Assyrian population or the Yazidis, or of criticising the grooming gangs (though IMO that's more a cultural event than a religious one).
>
> As ever, a massive problem is when people take things done by some of a group and say that the whole group are like it. "Some Muslims are terrorists," is mostly a reasonable comment. "All Muslims are terrorists," is not. </blockquote>
And, people are right to find such a definition very problematic. Even James O'Brien thinks it creates a blasphemy law.
Mr. Recidivist, unlike you, I've had the same voting position for weeks now.
I don't like any of them and don't know how I'll vote/spoil my ballot paper.
> This was the proposed definition of islamaphobia which I turned up:
>
> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c3d2febbd1a90cffdd8a9/t/5bfd1ea3352f531a6170ceee/1543315109493/Islamophobia+Defined.pdf
>
> <i>ISLAMOPHOBIA IS ROOTED IN RACISM AND IS A TYPE OF RACISM THAT TARGETS EXPRESSIONS OF MUSLIMNESS OR PERCEIVED MUSLIMNESS.
> The proposed definition of Islamophobia can be illustrated by a range of guidelines and examples rather than a list of essential features, which we feel would confine a prescriptiveness to its understanding to the detriment of contextual and fluid factors which continue to inform and shape manifestations of Islamophobia.
> We found the IHRA explanatory notes and examples both helpful and informative and it inspired much of the thinking of Parliamentarians engaged in this process of proposing a working definition of Islamophobia. The explanatory notes provided under the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism could, in all fairness, be adopted in their entirety to Islamophobia.
> Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include...</i>
That first sentence is incoherent. "Muslimness" is a meaningless word.
I am going to repost what I wrote on the previous thread (at the very end) as it is relevant to this.
> I've received a Labour leaflet! Not addressed, but came with the post, so it looks like the party is paying Royal Mail to pop them through letter boxes along with the latest offers from Lidl.
>
> Big picture of Jezza on the front. The message is to ignore Brexit, vote on domestic issues and send a message to the Tories.
Anecdotally Labour is losing heavily to LDs in London. Have spoken to several members in the past few days who said they are voting LD and there have been resignations from the party on the issue.
But there are three serious problems which arise with this proposed definition which do not arise with the IHRA definition:-
1. It confuses - perhaps deliberately - hatred of people who are Muslims with criticism of Islam, a belief system. That is extremely dangerous in a free society. No belief system should be protected from criticism. It would be as wrong to say that Catholicism should be exempt from criticism or the beliefs of Quakers or Hindus. Any religion, any belief system, is a choice. That choice should be open to criticism. Indeed, the fact that apostasy in Islam is - in the eyes of some Muslims - justification for death of the apostate is precisely the sort of thing that should be open to criticism. This definition could be used to stop that. The IHRA definition does not prevent criticism of the religion of Judaism. This definition is an attack on the freedom of though and speech of us all.
2. It in effect imposes a Muslim blasphemy law on everyone. No. Just no. There should be no blasphemy laws. The IHRA definition does not do this for Judaism.
3. It inhibits the fight against terrorism inspired by Islam or Islamist ideology. The criticisms of the police and security services should be taken very seriously. There are a number of Islamist groups which seek to prevent scrutiny of their actions by wrapping themselves up in the cloak of victims . This definition makes it easier to do this and thereby risks the security of us all.
Defining prejudice against a particular group while not inhibiting freedom of thought, speech or the fight against terrorism is a very difficult task indeed. This definition is utterly inadequate in this regard. On the whole I don’t think that one’s membership of a particular faith should be a protected characteristic. Unlike race or sex it is something one can change. Our choices are - and should be - open to criticism.
Imagine what the reaction would be if, following the vicious attacks on Catholic churches in Sri Lanka or the murder of a Catholic priest in France while giving Communion, Catholics came up with a definition of Catholicophobia that prevented any criticism of its attitude to gay people or its record on clerical child abuse or the treatment of unmarried mothers in Ireland. We’d be up in arms - and rightly so.
How a political party ensures that its members do not use insulting language against Muslims in the way that we have seen some people do is a hard task - and one that needs to be addressed. But no group is or should be beyond criticism. The IHRA definition does not stop Jews being criticised nor does it stop criticism of Israel.
Criticism is not the same as prejudice. Blurring this crucial distinction is what this proposed definition does and why it is the wrong answer.
> Part Two
>
> Defining prejudice against a particular group while not inhibiting freedom of thought, speech or the fight against terrorism is a very difficult task indeed. This definition is utterly inadequate in this regard. On the whole I don’t think that one’s membership of a particular faith should be a protected characteristic. Unlike race or sex it is something one can change. Our choices are - and should be - open to criticism.
>
> Imagine what the reaction would be if, following the vicious attacks on Catholic churches in Sri Lanka or the murder of a Catholic priest in France while giving Communion, Catholics came up with a definition of Catholicophobia that prevented any criticism of its attitude to gay people or its record on clerical child abuse or the treatment of unmarried mothers in Ireland. We’d be up in arms - and rightly so.
>
> How a political party ensures that its members do not use insulting language against Muslims in the way that we have seen some people do is a hard task - and one that needs to be addressed. But no group is or should be beyond criticism. The IHRA definition does not stop Jews being criticised nor does it stop criticism of Israel.
>
> Criticism is not the same as prejudice. Blurring this crucial distinction is what this proposed definition does and why it is the wrong answer.
Amen to that.
I think a general rule of thumb should be that if it's legal to say something about Christianity or Christians, it should be legal to say it about Islam or Muslims.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1128924609984831490
> Don't get it re the logo. It is just a logo. If it is well designed and effective, which I am dubious about, then it is up to other Parties to produce similar, or better. It is just another part of political campaigning.
>
> The argument is if there is a subliminal effect. We don't allow subliminals on TV adverts for good reason.
I get that. I am, however, unconvinced. What is more, it has been approved. The time for complaining was before it was. It could be construed as moaning about the offside law halfway through the first half.
> I'm not at all happy with that arrow in the BP logo. It's pointing straight at the box where you mark your cross. It is more or less TELLING you to put your cross there, i.e. to vote for the BP. Now OK, most people will not be impacted but there is no doubt that some will. It's probably going to be worth around 5% and that could quite easily swing the election, which in turn could affect the future of the country. If we end up crashing out of the EU without a deal because of a design flaw on the ballot paper that would be utterly egregious.
If party political election documents don't more or less TELL you where to put your cross, what are they for?
https://twitter.com/trevorbmbagency/status/1128244202117185536
Ha, genius!
Some of the 'guidelines and examples' appended to the definition appear entirely reasonable, while others appear to exclude axiomatically the possibility that there might be occasions for legitimate religious based criticisms of (for example) a state whose government is an avowed theocracy.
The Runnymede draft from 2017 had something to be said for it:
“Islamophobia is any distinction, exclusion, or restriction towards, or preference against, Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims) that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
As did Professor Tariq Modood's tests:
1. Does it stereotype Muslims by assuming they all think the same?
2. Is it about Muslims or a dialogue with Muslims, which they would wish to join in?
3. Is mutual learning possible?
4. Is the language civil and contextually appropriate?
5. Insincere criticism for ulterior motives?
For instance the one about the Ummah or loyalty to a foreign state. 40 years ago we had British citizens here agitating for the murder of a British citizen at the behest of a foreign religious and political leader - the Rushdie Fatwa.
That is absolutely a subject for the most vigorous discussion and criticism. Under this definition, pointing this fact out could be classed as Islamophobic. No.
What about when Islamist terrorists refer to what is happening to their Muslim brothers in foreign lands as justification for their acts? Could commenting on or even pointing this out be deemed islamophobic? Arguably yes on this definition.
The conflation of religion with race is also fundamentally flawed. The two are not the same. It is a fundamental category error.
Similarly the one relating to the use of symbols could be used to shut down any sort of academic study of how Islam spread or of attitudes by some Muslims towards non-Muslim women. It could be used to criticise the Muslim prosecutor of some of the rapists for what he said about their motivation and attitudes.
It is simply far too crude to simply replace the word Jew by Muslim and think that you have a workable definition. The plain fact is that large parts of the Muslim world think that any sort of criticism or free speech of their religion or culture or behaviour are unacceptable. We take a very different view. We simply cannot adopt a definition which effectively imports that attitude wholesale into our society.
Much much more thoughtful work is needed if prejudice against Muslims is to be addressed sensibly.
> Part Two
>
>
>
> Defining prejudice against a particular group while not inhibiting freedom of thought, speech or the fight against terrorism is a very difficult task indeed. This definition is utterly inadequate in this regard. On the whole I don’t think that one’s membership of a particular faith should be a protected characteristic. Unlike race or sex it is something one can change. Our choices are - and should be - open to criticism.
>
>
>
> Imagine what the reaction would be if, following the vicious attacks on Catholic churches in Sri Lanka or the murder of a Catholic priest in France while giving Communion, Catholics came up with a definition of Catholicophobia that prevented any criticism of its attitude to gay people or its record on clerical child abuse or the treatment of unmarried mothers in Ireland. We’d be up in arms - and rightly so.
>
>
>
> How a political party ensures that its members do not use insulting language against Muslims in the way that we have seen some people do is a hard task - and one that needs to be addressed. But no group is or should be beyond criticism. The IHRA definition does not stop Jews being criticised nor does it stop criticism of Israel.
>
>
>
> Criticism is not the same as prejudice. Blurring this crucial distinction is what this proposed definition does and why it is the wrong answer.
>
> The whole question of 'perceived Muslimness' is an interesting and concerning one, and as far as I can tell the examples don't address that.
To be fair, it is not an exhaustive list, and the report goes on at some length after the examples.
The problem is that the cases they go out to cite seem all to be pretty clearcut and uncontroversial examples of unacceptable behaviour. They don't make at all clear what criticisms of Islam and/or islamic states, or criticisms of particular individual examples of religiously motivated behaviour, would be acceptable under the proposed definition.
> @Sean_F - It is a problematic definition for some the reasons you (and Cyclefree on the previous thread) point out.
>
> Some of the 'guidelines and examples' appended to the definition appear entirely reasonable, while others appear to exclude axiomatically the possibility that there might be occasions for legitimate religious based criticisms of (for example) a state whose government is an avowed theocracy.
>
> The Runnymede draft from 2017 had something to be said for it:
>
> “Islamophobia is any distinction, exclusion, or restriction towards, or preference against, Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims) that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
>
> As did Professor Tariq Modood's tests:
> 1. Does it stereotype Muslims by assuming they all think the same?
> 2. Is it about Muslims or a dialogue with Muslims, which they would wish to join in?
> 3. Is mutual learning possible?
> 4. Is the language civil and contextually appropriate?
> 5. Insincere criticism for ulterior motives?
Number 5 was addressed by Lord Lester a few years back to deal with people using "Muslim" as a code for "Paki" (apologies for the language). He drafted some language to be used in the Religious Hatred Bill which would have caught those examples but not inhibited wider legitimate criticism.
Number 2 is too restrictive. Just because Muslims may not want to join in should not inhibit others from saying what they want.
Number 3: desirable but should not be used to limit what is being said.
Number 4: this is a matter of good manners rather than law. Ideally one should be civil but mockery, sarcasm, laughter, ridicule etc are all an important part of freedom of speech and thought. Muslims - nor anyone else - have no right not to be ridiculed, no matter how offended they might feel. Sometimes mockery is the only proper response to pompous or violent self-importance.
I am with Christopher Hitchens on this last point: there is the literal mind and the ironic mind. Those who would shut down criticism of their religion are literalists and I refuse to be cowed by their bullying. Nor should any self-respecting society.
https://twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/1128596724262559744
What do you make of the Runnymede definition ?
Or Prof. Madood's tests ?
If you are a Yazidi or a Christian in many Middle Eastern countries or a woman or gay it is not at all irrational to be fearful of many aspects of Islamic belief or practice. Hell, if you are a gay teacher in Birmingham it is not at all irrational to be fearful of Muslim parents who think you should go to hell and not be allowed to carry on your profession.
Anti-Muslim prejudice is a much better and more accurate term for the mischief we are trying to address.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/1128961695051898880
Is it wrong to think the canny old operator held on long enough to give his Party the maximum boost before Sunday's election?
> Some of the examples also don't work.
>
>
>
> For instance the one about the Ummah or loyalty to a foreign state. 40 years ago we had British citizens here agitating for the murder of a British citizen at the behest of a foreign religious and political leader - the Rushdie Fatwa.
>
>
>
> That is absolutely a subject for the most vigorous discussion and criticism. Under this definition, pointing this fact out could be classed as Islamophobic. No.
>
>
>
> What about when Islamist terrorists refer to what is happening to their Muslim brothers in foreign lands as justification for their acts? Could commenting on or even pointing this out be deemed islamophobic? Arguably yes on this definition.
>
>
>
> The conflation of religion with race is also fundamentally flawed. The two are not the same. It is a fundamental category error.
>
>
>
> Similarly the one relating to the use of symbols could be used to shut down any sort of academic study of how Islam spread or of attitudes by some Muslims towards non-Muslim women. It could be used to criticise the Muslim prosecutor of some of the rapists for what he said about their motivation and attitudes.
>
>
>
> It is simply far too crude to simply replace the word Jew by Muslim and think that you have a workable definition. The plain fact is that large parts of the Muslim world think that any sort of criticism or free speech of their religion or culture or behaviour are unacceptable. We take a very different view. We simply cannot adopt a definition which effectively imports that attitude wholesale into our society.
>
>
>
> Much much more thoughtful work is needed if prejudice against Muslims is to be addressed sensibly.
>
> Agreed.
>
> What do you make of the Runnymede definition ?
> Or Prof. Madood's tests ?
See my post at 11:18. The Runnymede definition seems broadly OK. The Madood tests are a bit too confining. Also I would use the phrase "anti-Muslim prejudice" rather than "Islamophobia" which is far too broad and (deliberately) confusing what is legitimate with what isn't.
> @Sean_F - It is a problematic definition for some the reasons you (and Cyclefree on the previous thread) point out.
>
> Some of the 'guidelines and examples' appended to the definition appear entirely reasonable, while others appear to exclude axiomatically the possibility that there might be occasions for legitimate religious based criticisms of (for example) a state whose government is an avowed theocracy.
>
> The Runnymede draft from 2017 had something to be said for it:
>
> “Islamophobia is any distinction, exclusion, or restriction towards, or preference against, Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims) that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
>
> As did Professor Tariq Modood's tests:
> 1. Does it stereotype Muslims by assuming they all think the same?
> 2. Is it about Muslims or a dialogue with Muslims, which they would wish to join in?
> 3. Is mutual learning possible?
> 4. Is the language civil and contextually appropriate?
> 5. Insincere criticism for ulterior motives?
I think Councillor Mohammed Amin has it right when he suggests dropping the term "Islamophobiia" completely and using "anti-Muslim hate."
> https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1128968774554660865
On 25% but only two points behind Labour!
What a reversal from 2017
> > @Nigelb said:
> > @Sean_F - It is a problematic definition for some the reasons you (and Cyclefree on the previous thread) point out.
> >
> > Some of the 'guidelines and examples' appended to the definition appear entirely reasonable, while others appear to exclude axiomatically the possibility that there might be occasions for legitimate religious based criticisms of (for example) a state whose government is an avowed theocracy.
> >
> > The Runnymede draft from 2017 had something to be said for it:
> >
> > “Islamophobia is any distinction, exclusion, or restriction towards, or preference against, Muslims (or those perceived to be Muslims) that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
> >
> > As did Professor Tariq Modood's tests:
> > 1. Does it stereotype Muslims by assuming they all think the same?
> > 2. Is it about Muslims or a dialogue with Muslims, which they would wish to join in?
> > 3. Is mutual learning possible?
> > 4. Is the language civil and contextually appropriate?
> > 5. Insincere criticism for ulterior motives?
>
> I think Councillor Mohammed Amin has it right when he suggests dropping the term "Islamophobiia" completely and using "anti-Muslim hate."
Agreed but substitute "prejudice" for "hate".
You can hate someone for what they actually do. I hate Islamist terrorists for the bloodshed they bring. I am not prejudiced against Muslims because of what some co-religionists do. (At least I hope so!)
Prejudice implies that there is no justification for your feelings. That is what we are trying to stop or limit.
> Good of George to commission a poll for the day May meets the 1922.
Must have thought it was Christmas when he saw the numbers.
CON: 27% (-13)
LAB: 25% (-7)
BREX: 16% (+16)
LDEM: 15% (+7)
GRN: 7% (+3)
CHUK: 2% (-)
via @IpsosMORI, 10 - 14 May
Chgs. w/ March
> The Eye story is one to watch too: Apparently Labour don't have systems in place to stop departing staff taking huge amounts of data with them when they leave.
> https://twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/1128596724262559744
-----------------
Isn't this a data protection issue then as well as an equalities concern?
> > @Scott_P said:
> > https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1128968774554660865
>
> On 25% but only two points behind Labour!
>
> What a reversal from 2017
This poll is terrible for both main parties.
> In case we have all forgotten as we watch May go down, Labour still also supply regular moments of popcorn fun:
>
> https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1128924609984831490
I am the most vociferous lefty in my office, but when I came back from my annual leave over the Easter break, there was unanimous agreement that a 4 day week (as long as it didn't massively decrease pay) was just much better for everyone. Better for child care, better for stress levels, better for just feeling human rather than an automaton. Lots of office bods would like a 4 day week. And it makes sense.
Greens have been arguing for a 35 hour week for yonks.
> Westminster voting intention:
>
> CON: 27% (-13)
> LAB: 25% (-7)
> BREX: 16% (+16)
> LDEM: 15% (+7)
> GRN: 7% (+3)
> CHUK: 2% (-)
>
> via @IpsosMORI, 10 - 14 May
> Chgs. w/ March
Which is correct, the Evening Standard or Britain Elects version?
> > @rottenborough said:
>
> > In case we have all forgotten as we watch May go down, Labour still also supply regular moments of popcorn fun:
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1128924609984831490
>
>
>
>
>
> I am the most vociferous lefty in my office, but when I came back from my annual leave over the Easter break, there was unanimous agreement that a 4 day week (as long as it didn't massively decrease pay) was just much better for everyone. Better for child care, better for stress levels, better for just feeling human rather than an automaton. Lots of office bods would like a 4 day week. And it makes sense.
>
> You wont get any complaints from me. It has to introduced and handled in sensible manner (which is where it will fall down with Jezza in charge).
>
> Greens have been arguing for a 35 hour week for yonks.
Yeah, I'm an active Green and like that Lab are moving more our direction. Shame in my parliamentary seat and most of my local council the only party likely to beat Tories are LDs and the local LDs are slimeballs (although the PPC is ok, I guess).
Lab 289
Con 259
SNP 55
LD. 22
Brexit 2 IOW and Thurrock.
> I am the most vociferous lefty in my office, but when I came back from my annual leave over the Easter break, there was unanimous agreement that a 4 day week (as long as it didn't massively decrease pay) was just much better for everyone.
>
> I work for a US company. What happens of the fifth day? Can I not work (and get fired) or work for free?
Presumably, they couldn't fire you.
I mean, they could make sure you were fired, but not fire you.
You ought to be concerned too as a Leaver. You don't want to win dirty.
I’m sure the public even without the arrow pointing to the box could work out where to stick their cross !
A fuss about nothing .
> I am the most vociferous lefty in my office, but when I came back from my annual leave over the Easter break, there was unanimous agreement that a 4 day week (as long as it didn't massively decrease pay) was just much better for everyone.
>
> I work for a US company. What happens of the fifth day? Can I not work (and get fired) or work for free?
I guess it depends on how labour laws effect the company. I assume you would have the right to renegotiate your contract on the basis of any law coming into effect / right to grandfather in your existing contract if you wished. It would really depend on how it was legislated for.
How does your job currently deal with the differences in laws and practices, such as paid family leave and the such?
> In the latest Westminster polls the two "main" parties are getting around 50% of the votes. According to Electoral Calculus they still woud win more than 80% of the seats, and in England & Wales well over 90% of the seats. If this happened at an election would there be an insurmountable cry for a change to PR, or are the two so ingrained in their opposition that nothing would change? I suspect the latter.
Yep. The time for change was 2005 when a majority was won on 35%.
Recent polling suggests Lab/SNP majority is likely on c 32% combined. Not sure I would be content with that, but I know 2 parties who would. The one in government, and the other, despite everything that has happened, who would sit as comfortably the largest opposition Party, with a decent stack of MPs, fancying their chances next time round.
> FWIW, which probably isn't a great deal in the current climate, that IPSOS works out at
> Lab 289
> Con 259
> SNP 55
> LD. 22
> Brexit 2 IOW and Thurrock.
>
SNP has balance of power, ironically the only thing the Brexit Party advance may do is ensure a Corbyn minority government reliant on the SNP which would mean either EUref2 or single market and Customs Union BINO
https://twitter.com/martin_durkin/status/1128917709146808320?s=21
> Don't know if it has been mentioned, but RIP Bob Hawke.
> Is it wrong to think the canny old operator held on long enough to give his Party the maximum boost before Sunday's election?
RIP, Australia's greatest PM in my lifetime alongside John Howard.
Saturday's Australian general election still too close to call
> .
> See my post at 11:18. The Runnymede definition seems broadly OK. The Madood tests are a bit too confining. Also I would use the phrase "anti-Muslim prejudice" rather than "Islamophobia" which is far too broad and (deliberately) confusing what is legitimate with what isn't.
>
> I pretty well agree with that.
The Tories could do a lot worse than getting me in to draft a definition.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > In case we have all forgotten as we watch May go down, Labour still also supply regular moments of popcorn fun:
> >
> > https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1128924609984831490
>
> I am the most vociferous lefty in my office, but when I came back from my annual leave over the Easter break, there was unanimous agreement that a 4 day week (as long as it didn't massively decrease pay) was just much better for everyone. Better for child care, better for stress levels, better for just feeling human rather than an automaton. Lots of office bods would like a 4 day week. And it makes sense.
There's nothing to stop anyone now working a 4 day week instead of a 5 day one and earning 80% of what they did before.
What people want is to work less and earn the same.
> > @148grss said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > In case we have all forgotten as we watch May go down, Labour still also supply regular moments of popcorn fun:
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1128924609984831490
> >
> > I am the most vociferous lefty in my office, but when I came back from my annual leave over the Easter break, there was unanimous agreement that a 4 day week (as long as it didn't massively decrease pay) was just much better for everyone. Better for child care, better for stress levels, better for just feeling human rather than an automaton. Lots of office bods would like a 4 day week. And it makes sense.
>
>
> There's nothing to stop anyone now working a 4 day week instead of a 5 day one and earning 80% of what they did before.
>
> What people want is to work less and earn the same.
>
Some employers offer compressed hours as an option, eg you can do 4 10 hour days instead of 5 8 hour days. Always struck me as a good idea thought it wouldn't work for everyone.
> Remainers complaining about TBP logo? First you were outsmarted by a bus, now you're being outsmarted by a f******* logo.
>
> I'm not speaking as a Remainer I'm speaking as a concerned citizen.
>
> You ought to be concerned too as a Leaver. You don't want to win dirty.
FFS, how is it winning dirty? Just because no one else has thought of it.
FWIW, I agree with the estimate made previously that it will have minimal effect (but does provide good entertainment for geeks like us).
More concerning, in my opinion, was the the Electoral Commission allowed An Independence from Europe as a valid name in 2014.
> > @148grss said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > In case we have all forgotten as we watch May go down, Labour still also supply regular moments of popcorn fun:
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1128924609984831490
> >
> > I am the most vociferous lefty in my office, but when I came back from my annual leave over the Easter break, there was unanimous agreement that a 4 day week (as long as it didn't massively decrease pay) was just much better for everyone. Better for child care, better for stress levels, better for just feeling human rather than an automaton. Lots of office bods would like a 4 day week. And it makes sense.
>
>
> There's nothing to stop anyone now working a 4 day week instead of a 5 day one and earning 80% of what they did before.
>
> What people want is to work less and earn the same.
>
Er, what? I have a full time job. I can't just march up to my manager and demand to go down to 4 days with my salary exactly pro-rataed down. Most people are in the same position.
> A reminder that simply leaving the EU is not, and never was, the end game for the ERG, Farage, Banks etc. and their wealthy sponsors...
>
> https://twitter.com/martin_durkin/status/1128917709146808320
Except support for Leaving the EU and the Brexit Party is as much anti globalisation and anti immigration as it is free market Thatcherite