The British General Election of 1923, was held on December 9th. Had a 71.1% turnout.
Called by a new Conservative Prime Minister who wanted a mandate for his economic policy of of protectionism. However The Tories lost seats to Labour and The Liberals. A minority Labour Ministry was formed.
Pedant hat ON
It was a Unionist prime minister. The Unionists did not readopt the name Conservative until 1925, and even then some of their MPs refused to use it (e.g. Neville Chamberlain).
Pedant hat OFF.
Conservative & Unionist Party dates from 1912.
Yes, but until 1925 they called themselves Unionists. It wasn't until 1925 they rebranded using the name of Conservative, and as I noted, it wasn't a universally popular decision either with the surviving Liberal Unionists.
Conservatives stood in the 1922 and 1923 elections.
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Can’t you just let it be ?
Not since Yesterday.
It seems that nobody has EVER trusted Nigel Farage with a Westminster seat.
That says a lot about Farage and his party's chances
He's a real nowhere man. Sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Can’t you just let it be ?
Not since Yesterday.
It seems that nobody has EVER trusted Nigel Farage with a Westminster seat.
That says a lot about Farage and his party's chances
He's a real nowhere man. Sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Can’t you just let it be ?
Not since Yesterday.
It seems that nobody has EVER trusted Nigel Farage with a Westminster seat.
That says a lot about Farage and his party's chances
He's a real nowhere man. Sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
Tonight is the anniversary of Kristallnacht. A pogrom in what was thought to be the most civilised country in western Europe, probably the world at that time. I tend to cut them a little slack.
To let pass a likening of the threat of PM Corbyn in 2019 Britain to the atrocity of Jewish genocide requires quite some slack to be cut!
Seems like an interesting seat, given how marginal it was in 2017 despite, wiki says, Wishart getting the highest number of votes for any SNP candidate. And that it wasn't one of those seats that only went SNP in the 2015 landslide, or only went Con for main opposition in 2017.
Trying to trace the ancestry of political parties is a fiendishly complicated business. The Conservatives, for example, date their existence to one of 1912 (the merger with the Liberal Unionists) 1846 (the formation of the Protectionist party) 1834 (the Tamworth manifesto which formally adopted the name 'Conservative' in use colloquially since about 1827) the rupture of the Whigs and Portland's junction with Pitt (1794) or the Exclusion Crisis of 1679 when the word 'Tory' was first used to describe opponents of the attempt to set aside the Duke of York from the Royal Succession.
Any of those dates could have some validity. Any of them dating back to 1846 would arguably make the Conservatives the world's oldest political party. But at the same time, there has been so much schisming, politicking, intrigue and changes that it's a very risky business to say the party of REdmond O'Hanlan is that of Boris Johnson.
We have the same problem with the Liberal Democrats. When do they date from? Well, officially 1988. But, we could argue they date from 1859 with the merger of the Whig and Radical parties. Or, to be a bit trickier, we could again go back to the Exclusion Crisis of 1679 when Shaftesbury was trying to get rid of York. Which one is correct? Well, the current Liberal party would definitely say the Liberal Democrats are nothing to do with them...but the party hierarchy under David Steele would disagree.
It's all great fun and keeps many historians in business.
It is fun, and I think the way it is generally reported is a fair way, in that the firm dates are the one's used, but the connections to previous formations as a continuity of political history is useful.
They didn't have political parties during the civil war of course, though there's work on the various political groupings that came into play, but I even read some theories tracing the early origins of political parties beginning to emerge with the army faction excluding that went on, though most consider that a bit too teneuous.
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Can’t you just let it be ?
Not since Yesterday.
It seems that nobody has EVER trusted Nigel Farage with a Westminster seat.
That says a lot about Farage and his party's chances
He's a real nowhere man. Sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Can’t you just let it be ?
Not since Yesterday.
It seems that nobody has EVER trusted Nigel Farage with a Westminster seat.
That says a lot about Farage and his party's chances
He's a real nowhere man. Sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
Tonight is the anniversary of Kristallnacht. A pogrom in what was thought to be the most civilised country in western Europe, probably the world at that time. I tend to cut them a little slack.
To let pass a likening of the threat of PM Corbyn in 2019 Britain to the atrocity of Jewish genocide requires quite some slack to be cut!
I have said on here before how we are clearly not in 1930s Germany. But we do feel a lot like 1920s Germany and Corbyn as PM would be an acceleration.
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Can’t you just let it be ?
Not since Yesterday.
It seems that nobody has EVER trusted Nigel Farage with a Westminster seat.
That says a lot about Farage and his party's chances
He's a real nowhere man. Sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
No just the fool on the hill
Or he is the walrus?
Surely that's Boris? (If being sizeist is still permitted).
The British General Election of 1923, was held on December 9th. Had a 71.1% turnout.
Called by a new Conservative Prime Minister who wanted a mandate for his economic policy of of protectionism. However The Tories lost seats to Labour and The Liberals. A minority Labour Ministry was formed.
Pedant hat ON
It was a Unionist prime minister. The Unionists did not readopt the name Conservative until 1925, and even then some of their MPs refused to use it (e.g. Neville Chamberlain).
Pedant hat OFF.
Conservative & Unionist Party dates from 1912.
Yes, but until 1925 they called themselves Unionists. It wasn't until 1925 they rebranded using the name of Conservative, and as I noted, it wasn't a universally popular decision either with the surviving Liberal Unionists.
Conservatives stood in the 1922 and 1923 elections.
Seems like an interesting seat, given how marginal it was in 2017 despite, wiki says, Wishart getting the highest number of votes for any SNP candidate. And that it wasn't one of those seats that only went SNP in the 2015 landslide, or only went Con for main opposition in 2017.
It's absolutely massive. Seriously difficult to canvass or leaflet. Good if you've got a Fitbit though.
WIth all these terrible candidates getting dumped for things they've said or done, it does seem likely that there will be a few cases of overshooting, and an outrage developing over things that never happened or are not a big deal. Parties will need to be a little cautious.
He just said that she has a particular view and others disagree!
That doesn’t seem an unreasonable comment to make!
Given Warsi takes the MCB line, refuting anything she says is the obvious and sensible thing to do
Am I hearing you right? Islamophobia is ok because you don't like the MCB? Is that any different from someone saying that antisemitism is ok because Israel is bad?
"Islamophobia" was a concept invented by Iranian fundamentalists in the late 1970's to suppress moderate muslims who questioned the Koran or who wanted freedom for women.
It's now used as a catch all phrase to cover or ban any criticism of the religion of Islam and it seems, any comments against middle eastern or some south Asian countries or people.
Trying to trace the ancestry of political parties is a fiendishly complicated business. The Conservatives, for example, date their existence to one of 1912 (the merger with the Liberal Unionists) 1846 (the formation of the Protectionist party) 1834 (the Tamworth manifesto which formally adopted the name 'Conservative' in use colloquially since about 1827) the rupture of the Whigs and Portland's junction with Pitt (1794) or the Exclusion Crisis of 1679 when the word 'Tory' was first used to describe opponents of the attempt to set aside the Duke of York from the Royal Succession.
Any of those dates could have some validity. Any of them dating back to 1846 would arguably make the Conservatives the world's oldest political party. But at the same time, there has been so much schisming, politicking, intrigue and changes that it's a very risky business to say the party of REdmond O'Hanlan is that of Boris Johnson.
We have the same problem with the Liberal Democrats. When do they date from? Well, officially 1988. But, we could argue they date from 1859 with the merger of the Whig and Radical parties. Or, to be a bit trickier, we could again go back to the Exclusion Crisis of 1679 when Shaftesbury was trying to get rid of York. Which one is correct? Well, the current Liberal party would definitely say the Liberal Democrats are nothing to do with them...but the party hierarchy under David Steele would disagree.
American politics is scarcely better. For example, most American authors and therefore Wikipedia claim the Democratic party as the world's oldest party. They offer the foundation date of around 1801, under Jefferson, as Democratic-Republicans, or 1828, under Andrew JAckson. But if we're entirely honest, that's a very dubious claim given that the current Democratic party was effectively formed by a breakaway group under Stephen Douglas in 1860 - the previous version being dominated by Southerners and therefore consumed in the Civil War. Indeed, arguably given there was a further major schism in 1948 which could have been said to lead to a new party even that date is too early, although that's made easier by the fact that the party was in power at the time and the party machine remained under the power of the incumbent President.
It's all great fun and keeps many historians in business.
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
Jesus Christ! Someone overheard someone on a bus back from Cheltenham.....
This is Stasiland!
About which Seamus Milne penned wistful articles about the DDR's wonderful social policies.
Must be English irony.
My knowledge of Milne stops at the point his father got shafted by Thatcher. Because of that i've always had a soft spot for him but have never followed hs politics. Oh and he looks like Strelnikov in Dr Zhivago
Milne is a dangerous apologist for Putin. That's all you need to know. He's should be nowhere near the levers of power. Exactly the same as Cummings.
When has Cummings ever supported communist regimes, anti western terrorists and 1 of the 3 worst mass murderers in history?
Not the same at all.
He's chosen to advance the career of a disloyal amoral mendacious creep for money. Not the same. Worse.
Are you seriously saying that Boris is worse than the IRA and Hamas? Are you all right Roger?
No I'm comparing someone supporting bastards in the abstract and someone actually working for one.
Tonight is the anniversary of Kristallnacht. A pogrom in what was thought to be the most civilised country in western Europe, probably the world at that time. I tend to cut them a little slack.
To let pass a likening of the threat of PM Corbyn in 2019 Britain to the atrocity of Jewish genocide requires quite some slack to be cut!
I have said on here before how we are clearly not in 1930s Germany. But we do feel a lot like 1920s Germany and Corbyn as PM would be an acceleration.
You should go and share your observations on Guido. you'd find yourself with like minded loons
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, busy making plans for nobody.
We live in a free country. People should be free to practice whatever religion they like. Equally, everyone should be equally free to criticise religion in anyway they like.
MCB and Warsi try to close down any criticism of their chosen religion. I'm not aware of any similar attempts to silence criticism of the Church of England or Catholicism.
I don't think you mean what you've said in the 3rd sentence. Criticize any or all religion, of course, but surely not "in any way they like". We must add "so long as the content of the criticism is within the law".
I also don't think you mean what you've said in the 2nd sentence. Free to practice "whatever religion they like"? Again, surely not. Again we must add "so long as its practices are within the law".
Your 2nd para is for me non-problematical. The term "Islamaphobic" should NOT be used indiscriminately as a ploy to prevent negative commentary about the religion of Islam or about its associated cultural practices.
What I would add to this, however, is that the word being often misused does not mean that the reprehensible thing it seeks to describe does not exist or is not a problem.
Perhaps a new word would be helpful. Anti-Muslimitism? Any better bids? Hope so because that is a bit of a tongue twister!
Didn't stand in 2017 either. Didn't stop him nearly losing then.
I imagine it helped him win then though.
Maybe made the difference, yes. But it is no improvement on the base line this time.
But with SNP polling up they have to be favourite, surely? Why would more LD/Lab back Con this time versus last time?
The SNP are not polling as high as they did in 2017. In fairness the Tories aren't either. Whose vote will fall most? The SNP are favourites but its likely to be close again.
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, busy making plans for nobody.
Tonight is the anniversary of Kristallnacht. A pogrom in what was thought to be the most civilised country in western Europe, probably the world at that time. I tend to cut them a little slack.
To let pass a likening of the threat of PM Corbyn in 2019 Britain to the atrocity of Jewish genocide requires quite some slack to be cut!
I have said on here before how we are clearly not in 1930s Germany. But we do feel a lot like 1920s Germany and Corbyn as PM would be an acceleration.
With no magnificent art, films, literature and debauchery to compensate? Bugger.
The British General Election of 1923, was held on December 9th. Had a 71.1% turnout.
Called by a new Conservative Prime Minister who wanted a mandate for his economic policy of of protectionism. However The Tories lost seats to Labour and The Liberals. A minority Labour Ministry was formed.
Pedant hat ON
It was a Unionist prime minister. The Unionists did not readopt the name Conservative until 1925, and even then some of their MPs refused to use it (e.g. Neville Chamberlain).
Pedant hat OFF.
Conservative & Unionist Party dates from 1912.
Yes, but until 1925 they called themselves Unionists. It wasn't until 1925 they rebranded using the name of Conservative, and as I noted, it wasn't a universally popular decision either with the surviving Liberal Unionists.
Conservatives stood in the 1922 and 1923 elections.
Don't trust Wiki on this, Sunil, it also says Liberals stood in 1846.
Feel free to edit the articles as you see fit!
As far as I can see, the official name of the Tories has been "Conservative and Unionist" since 1912.
Yes, Sunil, but they were CALLED the Unionists as their official short name until 1925. Just as the Social and Liberal Democrats were always called the Liberal Democrats.
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, busy making plans for nobody.
I find it stupefying that so many people on here will buy into islamophobic conspiracy theories, deny the existence of islamophobia, and treaty the violent, fascist hatred of Muslims as an acceptable proxy for their own party political views. You people are fucking sick.
We've heard in the last 24 hours movingly from one person on here who is afraid for their nephew whose Jewish school has to have guards and searches to secure them from the threat of violence. I have Muslim friends who go through the same weekly trauma. The security at the local mosque is a direct response to the threat of violent islamophobia. The men, woman and children who go there live in fear. How fucking dare you deny their lived experience of islamophobia.
I see the usual line being trotted out about "we must have the freedom to criticise religion". Yes. And as I fairly militant atheist I agree. I think anyone who believes in some sky-father believes in a fairy tale. I think the things people do in the name of religion are frequently vile. But islamophobia and antisemitism -- yes they are the same -- are when you hate, discriminate against or target Muslims or Jews for their faith, en masse, and without reference to their individual lives. Ordinary Muslims don't deserve to be hated for the actions of others, just as Jews don't.
PB.com has an islamophobia problem. It's right out there in the open, and I'm genuinely upset to see some otherwise sensible buying into the toxic, hateful conspiracy nonsense.
Betfair does seem to have moved an awful lot in the last few days given the complete absence of polls.
Presumably it is reacting to the various candidate comments / stepping downs and Watson resignation etc - but to my mind it's highly doubtful any of that will have any impact on voting intention.
Betfair does seem to have moved an awful lot in the last few days given the complete absence of polls.
Presumably it is reacting to the various candidate comments / stepping downs and Watson resignation etc - but to my mind it's highly doubtful any of that will have any impact on voting intention.
Isn't it the case that while this election will undoubtedly be a series of regional battles that the majority of polls point to a comfortable Tory majority?
The Betfair majority market was briefly odds on for the Tories at the back end of last week. After their campaign got off to a rocky start it drifted to c.2.5. That looked an over-reaction to some poorly judged interviews by Rees-Mogg and Co and the fact Labour had early success setting the agenda. If the polling showed no fall in the Tory lead it was always likely to drift back.
The change is reflected in the spreads as well. For instance Tory seats on Spreadex were available to buy at 325 earlier this week. You can buy now at 332.
Betfair does seem to have moved an awful lot in the last few days given the complete absence of polls.
Presumably it is reacting to the various candidate comments / stepping downs and Watson resignation etc - but to my mind it's highly doubtful any of that will have any impact on voting intention.
Party activists betting based on the first full week of canvassing?
WIth all these terrible candidates getting dumped for things they've said or done, it does seem likely that there will be a few cases of overshooting, and an outrage developing over things that never happened or are not a big deal. Parties will need to be a little cautious.
It will get worse in a few years. Most of today's students and schoolkids seem to be obsessed with plastering their entire lives all over the internet. An absolute goldmine of outrage material awaits when they decide they wish to offer up their manifest talents as tribunes of the plebs...
Tonight is the anniversary of Kristallnacht. A pogrom in what was thought to be the most civilised country in western Europe, probably the world at that time. I tend to cut them a little slack.
To let pass a likening of the threat of PM Corbyn in 2019 Britain to the atrocity of Jewish genocide requires quite some slack to be cut!
Kristallnacht didn’t happen out of the blue. It came after years and years of low level anti-semitic abuse and statements by a range of politicians and others, not just Nazis. Little wonder Jews are worried when such abuse is seen as normal or acceptable or not something really to worry about or a price to be paid for some greater good or just an unfortunate by-product or slip of the tongue by basically good people.
This is exactly the same complaint made by Muslims about low-level abuse against Muslims and both groups are right to raise this.
Jews have seen where that can lead to. It does not mean that it will lead to the same outcome (though note that in other countries - France, Germany and Denmark - there have been terrorist outrages deliberately targeted at Jews) but they want it stopped before it develops further.
As all decent people should.
And it is puzzling that the self-proclaimed anti-racist party with a lifelong fighter against racism at its head has found it so difficult to get to grips with this. It is really very puzzling.
The much talked of ‘Labour Leavers’ appears already to be with the BXP. Plenty of Tory remainers there, still.
The Lib Dems need to squeeze the Tory Remain vote, but they probably need Labour to be doing a bit worse before people feel free to risk it.
But they never will risk it, not while Corbyn is Labour leader. The shock of that 2017 exit poll is a huge asset for the Tories. The idea that "well, he can't get in" so it is safe to vote LibDem for Remainers/Brexit for Leavers has been knocked out of play in 2019.
Nonsense. YouGov had Lib Dems in second place in SE and SW England. Corbyn is not the alternative to BoZo, the yellow peril are.
We're in 2nd place in the SW, SE and the East of England. I had EEng down as Brexit heartlands - the good people of Boston who don't want to work in the local food industry wanting rid of the migrants who came to take the jobs they won't do, that sort of thing. Yet the LibDems are in 2nd ahead of Labour https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1192803313462448128
It is not “jobs they won’t do”. It is virtual slave labour wages that big business supports unlimited migration for. Without mass migration businesses would have to pay a reasonable wage. That, in a nutshell, is why ordinary working people despise the establishment parties.
Hmmm. I have personal experience of food factories in Eastern England full of migrants all paid well above the living wage absolutely unable to attract anyone local. If people don't want to work in a food factory or harvesting food that's fine. But you can't call it's slave wages and blame the bosses when a shortage of labour has seen wages soar. All this food left rotting on the ground is worth far more than a few quid extra in wages...
Not to the people who are on shit wages. I have personal experience of friends and family asking for pay rises or better conditions being told to “fuck off or I will get some Eastern European’s in”. Tell me. Dies your experience extend to having to do these jobs for a career at those rates? I would hazard a guess it doesn’t. People in full time employment having to rely on handouts is a sign of how fucked our society is.
Personally I find Patrick Harvey the most annoying person in Scottish politics, in what is a crowded field. I might in fairness find Richard Leonard irritating too, if he ever said anything of any interest. Pete Wishart, in contrast, is pretty ok. Its a pity his campaign for Speaker never got going. That would have been fun.
We live in a free country. People should be free to practice whatever religion they like. Equally, everyone should be equally free to criticise religion in anyway they like.
MCB and Warsi try to close down any criticism of their chosen religion. I'm not aware of any similar attempts to silence criticism of the Church of England or Catholicism.
I don't think you mean what you've said in the 3rd sentence. Criticize any or all religion, of course, but surely not "in any way they like". We must add "so long as the content of the criticism is within the law".
I also don't think you mean what you've said in the 2nd sentence. Free to practice "whatever religion they like"? Again, surely not. Again we must add "so long as its practices are within the law".
Your 2nd para is for me non-problematical. The term "Islamaphobic" should NOT be used indiscriminately as a ploy to prevent negative commentary about the religion of Islam or about its associated cultural practices.
What I would add to this, however, is that the word being often misused does not mean that the reprehensible thing it seeks to describe does not exist or is not a problem.
Perhaps a new word would be helpful. Anti-Muslimitism? Any better bids? Hope so because that is a bit of a tongue twister!
Therein lies the problem. You either believe people should be free to be anti anything they like - all of the people all of the time - or none at all. This horrible half way house we have in this country simply does not work on any level. Freedom of speech for all for everything or nothing. Yes, of course with some obvious limits.
The Muslim Council of Britain's main pursuit is the promotion of Islam and the denunciation of anyone or anything that impedes that promotion. That's not racist, or Islamophobic, or anything - it's just a statement of fact. The divine duty of all practising Muslims is to glorify, promote, and extol the virtues (as they see it) of Islam. The MCB - and Baroness Warsi - are vocal critics of any dissent against their religion and cultural practices. And that's fine - I have no problem with that whatsoever - so long as they give me or anyone else the courtesy and freedom to express a dissenting opinion without being denounced. However, they do not offer this courtesy, and that is why there is deep rooted suspicion and resentment, here, and right across the Western world - and it will only increase.
You cannot have a functioning democracy where certain organisations or religions, or anything else, are exempted from rational discussion because they find legitimate criticism offensive. That's the road to dictatorship.
The much talked of ‘Labour Leavers’ appears already to be with the BXP. Plenty of Tory remainers there, still.
The Lib Dems need to squeeze the Tory Remain vote, but they probably need Labour to be doing a bit worse before people feel free to risk it.
But they never will risk it, not while Corbyn is Labour leader. The shock of that 2017 exit poll is a huge asset for the Tories. The idea that "well, he can't get in" so it is safe to vote LibDem for Remainers/Brexit for Leavers has been knocked out of play in 2019.
Nonsense. YouGov had Lib Dems in second place in SE and SW England. Corbyn is not the alternative to BoZo, the yellow peril are.
We're in 2nd place in the SW, SE and the East of England. I had EEng down as Brexit heartlands - the good people of Boston who don't want to work in the local food industry wanting rid of the migrants who came to take the jobs they won't do, that sort of thing. Yet the LibDems are in 2nd ahead of Labour https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1192803313462448128
It is not “jobs they won’t do”. It is virtual slave labour wages that big business supports unlimited migration for. Without mass migration businesses would have to pay a reasonable wage. That, in a nutshell, is why ordinary working people despise the establishment parties.
Hmmm. I have personal experience of food factories in Eastern England full of migrants all paid well above the living wage absolutely unable to attract anyone local. If people don't want to work in a food factory or harvesting food that's fine. But you can't call it's slave wages and blame the bosses when a shortage of labour has seen wages soar. All this food left rotting on the ground is worth far more than a few quid extra in wages...
Not to the people who are on shit wages. I have personal experience of friends and family asking for pay rises or better conditions being told to “fuck off or I will get some Eastern European’s in”. Tell me. Dies your experience extend to having to do these jobs for a career at those rates? I would hazard a guess it doesn’t. People in full time employment having to rely on handouts is a sign of how fucked our society is.
Surely the "shit wages" are the national minimum wage? And this is substantially higher than it used to be, and now exempt from income tax below £12,000? About £17,000 based on a 40 hour week.
woody662 said: "Canvassing anecdotes from the East Mids this morning, Tory vote seems stable, Lib Dems picking a bit up, Labour support is very soft, in fact I had a Labour member say they were voting Tory to get rid of Corbyn. No one saying the Brexit party."
I live in E Mids. Anecdotally, the straw poll of my friends and family is exactly consistent with this. I`m amazed that some folk who I had nailed-on for The Brexit Party are to vote Tory. Some are quite critical of Farage.
Further anecdote: husband of a work colleague of mine is also a Labour member and weighing up whether to sit on his hands or vote Lib Dem. But then again, people that into politics will be thinking seriously about the issues, whereas the robot voters will revert to their programming come the big day. Labour should suffer only limited losses accordingly.
Betfair does seem to have moved an awful lot in the last few days given the complete absence of polls.
Presumably it is reacting to the various candidate comments / stepping downs and Watson resignation etc - but to my mind it's highly doubtful any of that will have any impact on voting intention.
Party activists betting based on the first full week of canvassing?
Overheard last week a labour activist (at the football) complaining how badly they were doing on the doorstep due to the anti-semitism issue.
Hey Jews. Don't be so sad. We have no plans. To come and get you. The minute. That Jez becomes the PM. Then we begin. To make all things better better better better better better ARGH! Na na na - na na na nah - na na na nah - hey Jews
Tonight is the anniversary of Kristallnacht. A pogrom in what was thought to be the most civilised country in western Europe, probably the world at that time. I tend to cut them a little slack.
To let pass a likening of the threat of PM Corbyn in 2019 Britain to the atrocity of Jewish genocide requires quite some slack to be cut!
I have said on here before how we are clearly not in 1930s Germany. But we do feel a lot like 1920s Germany and Corbyn as PM would be an acceleration.
You should go and share your observations on Guido. you'd find yourself with like minded loons
Another day, another far leftist insulting Jewish people worried about rising anti-Semitism.
And it is puzzling that the self-proclaimed anti-racist party with a lifelong fighter against racism at its head has found it so difficult to get to grips with this. It is really very puzzling.
Not really. I suspect that they simply knew to keep their mouths shut. Having an anti-semitic leadership merely gives the green light to stop pretending and open their mouths.
On the good news front, it means we know who they are and, unless their denials seem unusually sincere, i see no reason to ever trust them again
Personally I find Patrick Harvey the most annoying person in Scottish politics, in what is a crowded field. I might in fairness I might find Richard Leonard irritating too, if he ever said anything of any interest. Pete Wishart, in contrast, is pretty ok. Its a pity his campaign for Speaker never got going. That would have been fun.
If you want any confirmation of Richard Leonard's qualities listen to R4's Any Questions last night, 5 minutes should be enough.
I made an heroic effort to set aside my own prejudices, preconceptions and decades long disillusionment with SLab and...he's still really, really crap.
Hey Jews. Don't be so sad. We have no plans. To come and get you. The minute. That Jez becomes the PM. Then we begin. To make all things better better better better better better ARGH! Na na na - na na na nah - na na na nah - hey Jews
I'm afraid that some things are just not suitable for humour. Not many thankfully, but not this.
Personally I find Patrick Harvey the most annoying person in Scottish politics, in what is a crowded field. I might in fairness I might find Richard Leonard irritating too, if he ever said anything of any interest. Pete Wishart, in contrast, is pretty ok. Its a pity his campaign for Speaker never got going. That would have been fun.
If you want any confirmation of Richard Leonard's qualities listen to R4's Any Questions last night, 5 minutes should be enough.
I made an heroic effort to set aside my own prejudices, preconceptions and decades long disillusionment with SLab and...he's still really, really crap.
As a lot more capable ex Labour guy once said, I admire your indefatigably. Not for me I'm afraid.
And it is puzzling that the self-proclaimed anti-racist party with a lifelong fighter against racism at its head has found it so difficult to get to grips with this. It is really very puzzling.
This really is an absolutely key point for me, and one of the reasons the 'he didn't realise X or Y was antisemitic' really doesn't wash for me. If Corbyn is such an experienced fighter of racism in all its forms, why does he find it difficult to spot at times, and why is it such a challenge to get a grip on even a small proportion of his supporters displaying it? At the least it means he is not as effective a fighter of these things as we are told.
I find it stupefying that so many people on here will buy into islamophobic conspiracy theories, deny the existence of islamophobia, and treaty the violent, fascist hatred of Muslims as an acceptable proxy for their own party political views. You people are fucking sick.
We've heard in the last 24 hours movingly from one person on here who is afraid for their nephew whose Jewish school has to have guards and searches to secure them from the threat of violence. I have Muslim friends who go through the same weekly trauma. The security at the local mosque is a direct response to the threat of violent islamophobia. The men, woman and children who go there live in fear. How fucking dare you deny their lived experience of islamophobia.
I see the usual line being trotted out about "we must have the freedom to criticise religion". Yes. And as I fairly militant atheist I agree. I think anyone who believes in some sky-father believes in a fairy tale. I think the things people do in the name of religion are frequently vile. But islamophobia and antisemitism -- yes they are the same -- are when you hate, discriminate against or target Muslims or Jews for their faith, en masse, and without reference to their individual lives. Ordinary Muslims don't deserve to be hated for the actions of others, just as Jews don't.
PB.com has an islamophobia problem. It's right out there in the open, and I'm genuinely upset to see some otherwise sensible buying into the toxic, hateful conspiracy nonsense.
I believe people react to the word "Islamophobia", which has in the past been used to attack criticism of more conservative elements of fundamentalist. But terminology aside, prejudice and bigotry against Muslims clearly exists and needs to be combatted. This is proven by the anti-Muslim attacks on Sajid Javid and Sadiq Khan who are clearly religiously moderate. That shows there is a bigotry out there beyond religious criticism.
Tonight is the anniversary of Kristallnacht. A pogrom in what was thought to be the most civilised country in western Europe, probably the world at that time. I tend to cut them a little slack.
To let pass a likening of the threat of PM Corbyn in 2019 Britain to the atrocity of Jewish genocide requires quite some slack to be cut!
Kristallnacht didn’t happen out of the blue. It came after years and years of low level anti-semitic abuse and statements by a range of politicians and others, not just Nazis. Little wonder Jews are worried when such abuse is seen as normal or acceptable or not something really to worry about or a price to be paid for some greater good or just an unfortunate by-product or slip of the tongue by basically good people.
This is exactly the same complaint made by Muslims about low-level abuse against Muslims and both groups are right to raise this.
Jews have seen where that can lead to. It does not mean that it will lead to the same outcome (though note that in other countries - France, Germany and Denmark - there have been terrorist outrages deliberately targeted at Jews) but they want it stopped before it develops further.
As all decent people should.
And it is puzzling that the self-proclaimed anti-racist party with a lifelong fighter against racism at its head has found it so difficult to get to grips with this. It is really very puzzling.
They are still pondering whether you would feel more secure as a Palestinian citizen of Gaza about who few seem to care or a Jewish person living in one of our cities who has never experienced anti semitism in their lives but are calling Labour supporters- who faced down aparteid when the right wing Tories and their friends were calling for Mandela to be hung -Nazis.
I find it stupefying that so many people on here will buy into islamophobic conspiracy theories, deny the existence of islamophobia, and treaty the violent, fascist hatred of Muslims as an acceptable proxy for their own party political views. You people are fucking sick.
We've heard in the last 24 hours movingly from one person on here who is afraid for their nephew whose Jewish school has to have guards and searches to secure them from the threat of violence. I have Muslim friends who go through the same weekly trauma. The security at the local mosque is a direct response to the threat of violent islamophobia. The men, woman and children who go there live in fear. How fucking dare you deny their lived experience of islamophobia.
I see the usual line being trotted out about "we must have the freedom to criticise religion". Yes. And as I fairly militant atheist I agree. I think anyone who believes in some sky-father believes in a fairy tale. I think the things people do in the name of religion are frequently vile. But islamophobia and antisemitism -- yes they are the same -- are when you hate, discriminate against or target Muslims or Jews for their faith, en masse, and without reference to their individual lives. Ordinary Muslims don't deserve to be hated for the actions of others, just as Jews don't.
PB.com has an islamophobia problem. It's right out there in the open, and I'm genuinely upset to see some otherwise sensible buying into the toxic, hateful conspiracy nonsense.
I believe people react to the word "Islamophobia", which has in the past been used to attack criticism of more conservative elements of fundamentalist. But terminology aside, prejudice and bigotry against Muslims clearly exists and needs to be combatted. This is proven by the anti-Muslim attacks on Sajid Javid and Sadiq Khan who are clearly religiously moderate. That shows there is a bigotry out there beyond religious criticism.
I find it stupefying that so many people on here will buy into islamophobic conspiracy theories, deny the existence of islamophobia, and treaty the violent, fascist hatred of Muslims as an acceptable proxy for their own party political views. You people are fucking sick.
We've heard in the last 24 hours movingly from one person on here who is afraid for their nephew whose Jewish school has to have guards and searches to secure them from the threat of violence. I have Muslim friends who go through the same weekly trauma. The security at the local mosque is a direct response to the threat of violent islamophobia. The men, woman and children who go there live in fear. How fucking dare you deny their lived experience of islamophobia.
I see the usual line being trotted out about "we must have the freedom to criticise religion". Yes. And as I fairly militant atheist I agree. I think anyone who believes in some sky-father believes in a fairy tale. I think the things people do in the name of religion are frequently vile. But islamophobia and antisemitism -- yes they are the same -- are when you hate, discriminate against or target Muslims or Jews for their faith, en masse, and without reference to their individual lives. Ordinary Muslims don't deserve to be hated for the actions of others, just as Jews don't...
I completely agree with that.
There are perhaps differences in our attitudes to the two belief systems, though - if only because there are ten times the number of Moslems as Jews in the UK.
The Tories are not going to lose this election. How can they? There is no opposition to beat. Boris will get a majority and Labour and the LibDems will look like fools for thinking they could win this.
Betfair does seem to have moved an awful lot in the last few days given the complete absence of polls.
Presumably it is reacting to the various candidate comments / stepping downs and Watson resignation etc - but to my mind it's highly doubtful any of that will have any impact on voting intention.
Might just be reacting to the polls mostly not moving much and time passing. If the Tories win by 10%+ (leads almost every poll gives them) then they'll win a majority for sure. So every day that passes and the polls stand still is good for them.
The Tories are not going to lose this election. How can they? There is no opposition to beat. Boris will get a majority and Labour and the LibDems will look like fools for thinking they could win this.
I'm pretty sure the exact same thing was said in 2017.
I’ll be honest, I’m not a political strategist, but two days of “on this occasion the Labour candidate was not racist, but we had to go and check” can’t have been part of the “how to attract liberal votes” plan.
Therein lies the problem. You either believe people should be free to be anti anything they like - all of the people all of the time - or none at all. This horrible half way house we have in this country simply does not work on any level. Freedom of speech for all for everything or nothing. Yes, of course with some obvious limits.
The Muslim Council of Britain's main pursuit is the promotion of Islam and the denunciation of anyone or anything that impedes that promotion. That's not racist, or Islamophobic, or anything - it's just a statement of fact. The divine duty of all practising Muslims is to glorify, promote, and extol the virtues (as they see it) of Islam. The MCB - and Baroness Warsi - are vocal critics of any dissent against their religion and cultural practices. And that's fine - I have no problem with that whatsoever - so long as they give me or anyone else the courtesy and freedom to express a dissenting opinion without being denounced. However, they do not offer this courtesy, and that is why there is deep rooted suspicion and resentment, here, and right across the Western world - and it will only increase.
You cannot have a functioning democracy where certain organisations or religions, or anything else, are exempted from rational discussion because they find legitimate criticism offensive. That's the road to dictatorship.
Your 1st para implies there is no viable terrain between no free speech a la North Korea and a complete free-for-all where you can openly incite hatred and violence against others. I totally disagree with that. For me, there is a balance, free speech within the law and we have it about right, albeit I would never claim our framework is incapable of being improved.
Your 2nd para reads to me like special pleading and frankly a bit of a whinge. You want to be free to denounce without being yourself denounced? That sounds suspiciously akin to what you are accusing others of.
Your 3rd para, I agree with the general point but I don't agree that Islam as a religion or a culture is largely exempted from rational discussion. There can be some "cultural cringe" - which is unhealthy - but as can be seen right here and now, and elsewhere, there is nothing stopping people having a pop at the RoP.
Jesus Christ! Someone overheard someone on a bus back from Cheltenham.....
This is Stasiland!
About which Seamus Milne penned wistful articles about the DDR's wonderful social policies.
Must be English irony.
My knowledge of Milne stops at the point his father got shafted by Thatcher. Because of that i've always had a soft spot for him but have never followed hs politics. Oh and he looks like Strelnikov in Dr Zhivago
Milne is a dangerous apologist for Putin. That's all you need to know. He's should be nowhere near the levers of power. Exactly the same as Cummings.
The phrase 'that's all you need to know' should always be treated with circumspection.
I disagree. It’s a very useful signal that the user has simplified the matter at hand and doesn’t want you to dig further
Betfair does seem to have moved an awful lot in the last few days given the complete absence of polls.
Presumably it is reacting to the various candidate comments / stepping downs and Watson resignation etc - but to my mind it's highly doubtful any of that will have any impact on voting intention.
Might just be reacting to the polls mostly not moving much and time passing. If the Tories win by 10%+ (leads almost every poll gives them) then they'll win a majority for sure. So every day that passes and the polls stand still is good for them.
Except the polls aren't standing still. Labour is making slow but steady progress and there's still nearly five weeks to go. In reality, the shifts in the market, insofar as I understand them, are modest and probably reflect the continuing uncertainty over whether the Tories will win with a wafer thin majority or fall just short. We probably won't have any better idea of that at any point between now and publication of the exit poll.
The Tories are not going to lose this election. How can they? There is no opposition to beat. Boris will get a majority and Labour and the LibDems will look like fools for thinking they could win this.
I was sort of hoping the LDs would move into second place during the first part of the campaign because then we could have had a decent contest. At the end of September there were a number of opinion polls which put them slightly ahead of Labour but the LDs seem to have lost momentum since then. Corbyn isn't electable as a PM in my opinion so if Labour are in second place it isn't going to be a very interesting election, as you imply.
Mrs C, you may be underestimating the incompetence of Boris Johnson.
No
It is nothing to do with Boris. The conservative side of the electorate will not vote for Farage in a Westminster election. They never have. Tories are largely Leavers and there is a deal o the table.
The opposition is a shambles and is caught in a racism row with a leader who, outside oc his cult, is regarded as useless. The LibDems are also taking votes from Labour but they will not get enough to form a govt.
Canvassing anecdotes from the East Mids this morning, Tory vote seems stable, Lib Dems picking a bit up, Labour support is very soft, in fact I had a Labour member say they were voting Tory to get rid of Corbyn. No one saying the Brexit party.
Which constituency if you don't mind me asking? (Or alternatively the general area).
The Tories are not going to lose this election. How can they? There is no opposition to beat. Boris will get a majority and Labour and the LibDems will look like fools for thinking they could win this.
I'm pretty sure the exact same thing was said in 2017.
I am also pretty sure Labour did not win the 2017 election. We have a Tory govt.
We live in a free country. People should be free to practice whatever religion they like. Equally, everyone should be equally free to criticise religion in anyway they like.
MCB and Warsi try to close down any criticism of their chosen religion. I'm not aware of any similar attempts to silence criticism of the Church of England or Catholicism.
I don't think you mean what you've said in the 3rd sentence. Criticize any or all religion, of course, but surely not "in any way they like". We must add "so long as the content of the criticism is within the law".
I also don't think you mean what you've said in the 2nd sentence. Free to practice "whatever religion they like"? Again, surely not. Again we must add "so long as its practices are within the law".
Your 2nd para is for me non-problematical. The term "Islamaphobic" should NOT be used indiscriminately as a ploy to prevent negative commentary about the religion of Islam or about its associated cultural practices.
What I would add to this, however, is that the word being often misused does not mean that the reprehensible thing it seeks to describe does not exist or is not a problem.
Perhaps a new word would be helpful. Anti-Muslimitism? Any better bids? Hope so because that is a bit of a tongue twister!
Therein lies the problem. You either believe people should be free to be anti anything they like - all of the people all of the time - or none at all. This horrible half way house we have in this country simply does not work on any level. Freedom of speech for all for everything or nothing. Yes, of course with some obvious limits.
The Muslim Council of Britain's main pursuit is the promotion of Islam and the denunciation of anyone or anything that impedes that promotion. That's not racist, or Islamophobic, or anything - it's just a statement of fact.
Isn't it just that criticism of ideas must be permitted, and discrimination against people must not be?
So, to stick with religion, insulting, questioning, or criticising Christianity must be permitted (otherwise we have backward blasphemy laws), but discriminating against someone because they're Christian must not be.
I'm afraid that some things are just not suitable for humour. Not many thankfully, but not this.
It's just that I couldn't help wondering what lyrics the guy was singing - i.e. did he just replace "Jude" with "Jews" and sing the rest as per standard, or did he make the effort to tailor the whole song? Does knowing the answer to this make a difference? Yes, I think it does. If he did take the trouble to come up with new (non crass and relevant) lyrics then for me that would take a bad thing and make it bett ... slightly less bad.
Your 1st para implies there is no viable terrain between no free speech a la North Korea and a complete free-for-all where you can openly incite hatred and violence against others. I totally disagree with that. For me, there is a balance, free speech within the law and we have it about right, albeit I would never claim our framework is incapable of being improved.
Your 2nd para reads to me like special pleading and frankly a bit of a whinge. You want to be free to denounce without being yourself denounced? That sounds suspiciously akin to what you are accusing others of.
Your 3rd para, I agree with the general point but I don't agree that Islam as a religion or a culture is largely exempted from rational discussion. There can be some "cultural cringe" - which is unhealthy - but as can be seen right here and now, and elsewhere, there is nothing stopping people having a pop at the RoP.
No, I said in a previous post there would have to be obvious limits regarding the incitement of violence, terrorism, etc. 'Within the law' is all well and good until bad laws are passed and rationality is jettisoned for identity politics and political correctness. A phrase like 'Islamophobia' surely would not exist in a rational world. Actually, you could argue neither should religion, of any colour. Personally, I think everyone single one of us would be better off without it, but there you are. I can think of no other force in human history that has divided common cause more successfully than organised religion.
No. Read what I said again. The freedom for ALL - or nothing. The MCB would no doubt denounce me as an 'Islamophobe' if they read my comments, and because of that, I could be subjected to possible arrest. That cannot be right in a democracy, and would have once upon a time been utterly unthinkable in this country. It's not a whinge, it's an observation of how sometimes good intentions can be warped, willingly, to suit an agenda, political, cultural, or otherwise.
But here is a good example of what I said - you and I disagree, there's no abuse, certainly not from me, and a healthy, robust discussion ensues.
Imagine saying you would celebrate the death of your former party leader, not as a senior politician who had had run-ins with him but as a nobody aspiring parliamentary candidate. What a morally perverse party Labour is.
Kristallnacht didn’t happen out of the blue. It came after years and years of low level anti-semitic abuse and statements by a range of politicians and others, not just Nazis. Little wonder Jews are worried when such abuse is seen as normal or acceptable or not something really to worry about or a price to be paid for some greater good or just an unfortunate by-product or slip of the tongue by basically good people.
This is exactly the same complaint made by Muslims about low-level abuse against Muslims and both groups are right to raise this.
Jews have seen where that can lead to. It does not mean that it will lead to the same outcome (though note that in other countries - France, Germany and Denmark - there have been terrorist outrages deliberately targeted at Jews) but they want it stopped before it develops further.
As all decent people should.
And it is puzzling that the self-proclaimed anti-racist party with a lifelong fighter against racism at its head has found it so difficult to get to grips with this. It is really very puzzling.
The place between complacency and hyperbole is where we need to be.
Isn't it just that criticism of ideas must be permitted, and discrimination against people must not be?
So, to stick with religion, insulting, questioning, or criticising Christianity must be permitted (otherwise we have backward blasphemy laws), but discriminating against someone because they're Christian must not be.
Didn't Labour have in their 2015 election manifesto a specific pledge to outlaw even criticising Islam? In effect, a blasphemy law, nonsense we stopped in this country centuries ago.
He just said that she has a particular view and others disagree!
That doesn’t seem an unreasonable comment to make!
Given Warsi takes the MCB line, refuting anything she says is the obvious and sensible thing to do
Am I hearing you right? Islamophobia is ok because you don't like the MCB? Is that any different from someone saying that antisemitism is ok because Israel is bad?
"Islamophobia" was a concept invented by Iranian fundamentalists in the late 1970's to suppress moderate muslims who questioned the Koran or who wanted freedom for women.
It's now used as a catch all phrase to cover or ban any criticism of the religion of Islam and it seems, any comments against middle eastern or some south Asian countries or people.
Not the same as antisemitism at all.
Oh fuck off.
We must hope James Cleverly does not come across Noo's defence, or it will be his next excuse.
Tonight is the anniversary of Kristallnacht. A pogrom in what was thought to be the most civilised country in western Europe, probably the world at that time. I tend to cut them a little slack.
To let pass a likening of the threat of PM Corbyn in 2019 Britain to the atrocity of Jewish genocide requires quite some slack to be cut!
I have said on here before how we are clearly not in 1930s Germany. But we do feel a lot like 1920s Germany and Corbyn as PM would be an acceleration.
You should go and share your observations on Guido. you'd find yourself with like minded loons
Another day, another far leftist insulting Jewish people worried about rising anti-Semitism.
When you first started posting here I took you seriously. Now I realize I was taken. You are a troll. Being charitable maybe just a Tory supporter trying to get noticed.
The Tories are not going to lose this election. How can they? There is no opposition to beat. Boris will get a majority and Labour and the LibDems will look like fools for thinking they could win this.
I'm pretty sure the exact same thing was said in 2017.
I am also pretty sure Labour did not win the 2017 election. We have a Tory govt.
I’m afraid all these stories will be forgotten come the election . Not because people don’t think the Labour Party has an issue but because when push comes to shove Labour voters will stomach a deeply flawed current state of the Labour Party compared to the Tories .
This might be unpalatable to some in here but the Tories can hardly moralize when their leader is hardly a standard bearer for tolerance .
It does seem a bit odd that on a coach full of journalists and MPs from other parties, no-one recorded it or published it until now, more than 18 months later.
The party must do something, but what?
Use it as their campaign song?
If they want a Beatles campaign song, I would have thought 'Help!' would be better than 'Hey Jude.'
Can’t you just let it be ?
Not since Yesterday.
It seems that nobody has EVER trusted Nigel Farage with a Westminster seat.
That says a lot about Farage and his party's chances
He's a real nowhere man. Sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
No just the fool on the hill
Humpty Dumpty seems the best fit for Boris, both because of the common shape and because of Humpty's linguistic gymnastics. As he says;
"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less". This seems to fit rather well with Boris' cavalier attitude to the truth.
No, I said in a previous post there would have to be obvious limits regarding the incitement of violence, terrorism, etc. 'Within the law' is all well and good until bad laws are passed and rationality is jettisoned for identity politics and political correctness. A phrase like 'Islamophobia' surely would not exist in a rational world. Actually, you could argue neither should religion, of any colour. Personally, I think everyone single one of us would be better off without it, but there you are. I can think of no other force in human history that has divided common cause more successfully than organised religion.
No. Read what I said again. The freedom for ALL - or nothing. The MCB would no doubt denounce me as an 'Islamophobe' if they read my comments, and because of that, I could be subjected to possible arrest. That cannot be right in a democracy, and would have once upon a time been utterly unthinkable in this country. It's not a whinge, it's an observation of how sometimes good intentions can be warped, willingly, to suit an agenda, political, cultural, or otherwise.
But here is a good example of what I said - you and I disagree, there's no abuse, certainly not from me, and a healthy, robust discussion ensues.
No abuse from me either!
OK, so you are not a free speech absolutist. Fine.
A rational world would have a different word (i.e. not islamophobia) for anti-Muslim bigotry? OK, but I really can't get as exercised about that as you are.
As to you getting arrested for saying this sort of stuff? - C'mon.
Comments
They didn't have political parties during the civil war of course, though there's work on the various political groupings that came into play, but I even read some theories tracing the early origins of political parties beginning to emerge with the army faction excluding that went on, though most consider that a bit too teneuous.
Or he is the walrus?
Surely that's Boris? (If being sizeist is still permitted).
As far as I can see, the official name of the Tories has been "Conservative and Unionist" since 1912.
I also don't think you mean what you've said in the 2nd sentence. Free to practice "whatever religion they like"? Again, surely not. Again we must add "so long as its practices are within the law".
Your 2nd para is for me non-problematical. The term "Islamaphobic" should NOT be used indiscriminately as a ploy to prevent negative commentary about the religion of Islam or about its associated cultural practices.
What I would add to this, however, is that the word being often misused does not mean that the reprehensible thing it seeks to describe does not exist or is not a problem.
Perhaps a new word would be helpful. Anti-Muslimitism? Any better bids? Hope so because that is a bit of a tongue twister!
If I buy seats at £10 each, at point X, I then win £10 per seat above point X. Is this correct?, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the bet!
We've heard in the last 24 hours movingly from one person on here who is afraid for their nephew whose Jewish school has to have guards and searches to secure them from the threat of violence. I have Muslim friends who go through the same weekly trauma. The security at the local mosque is a direct response to the threat of violent islamophobia. The men, woman and children who go there live in fear. How fucking dare you deny their lived experience of islamophobia.
I see the usual line being trotted out about "we must have the freedom to criticise religion". Yes. And as I fairly militant atheist I agree. I think anyone who believes in some sky-father believes in a fairy tale. I think the things people do in the name of religion are frequently vile. But islamophobia and antisemitism -- yes they are the same -- are when you hate, discriminate against or target Muslims or Jews for their faith, en masse, and without reference to their individual lives. Ordinary Muslims don't deserve to be hated for the actions of others, just as Jews don't.
PB.com has an islamophobia problem. It's right out there in the open, and I'm genuinely upset to see some otherwise sensible buying into the toxic, hateful conspiracy nonsense.
Presumably it is reacting to the various candidate comments / stepping downs and Watson resignation etc - but to my mind it's highly doubtful any of that will have any impact on voting intention.
The Betfair majority market was briefly odds on for the
Tories at the back end of last week. After their campaign got off to a rocky start it drifted to c.2.5. That looked an over-reaction to some poorly judged interviews by Rees-Mogg and Co and the fact Labour had early success setting the agenda. If the polling showed no fall in the Tory lead it was always likely to drift back.
The change is reflected in the spreads as well. For instance Tory seats on Spreadex were available to buy at 325 earlier this week. You can buy now at 332.
This is exactly the same complaint made by Muslims about low-level abuse against Muslims and both groups are right to raise this.
Jews have seen where that can lead to. It does not mean that it will lead to the same outcome (though note that in other countries - France, Germany and Denmark - there have been terrorist outrages deliberately targeted at Jews) but they want it stopped before it develops further.
As all decent people should.
And it is puzzling that the self-proclaimed anti-racist party with a lifelong fighter against racism at its head has found it so difficult to get to grips with this. It is really very puzzling.
It's easy if you try...
Tell me. Dies your experience extend to having to do these jobs for a career at those rates?
I would hazard a guess it doesn’t. People in full time employment having to rely on handouts is a sign of how fucked our society is.
"If I buy seats at £10 each, at point X, I then win £10 per seat above point X. Is this correct?, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the bet!"
Yes correct
The Muslim Council of Britain's main pursuit is the promotion of Islam and the denunciation of anyone or anything that impedes that promotion. That's not racist, or Islamophobic, or anything - it's just a statement of fact. The divine duty of all practising Muslims is to glorify, promote, and extol the virtues (as they see it) of Islam. The MCB - and Baroness Warsi - are vocal critics of any dissent against their religion and cultural practices. And that's fine - I have no problem with that whatsoever - so long as they give me or anyone else the courtesy and freedom to express a dissenting opinion without being denounced. However, they do not offer this courtesy, and that is why there is deep rooted suspicion and resentment, here, and right across the Western world - and it will only increase.
You cannot have a functioning democracy where certain organisations or religions, or anything else, are exempted from rational discussion because they find legitimate criticism offensive. That's the road to dictatorship.
We have no plans. To come and get you.
The minute. That Jez becomes the PM.
Then we begin. To make all things better better better better better better ARGH!
Na na na - na na na nah - na na na nah - hey Jews
On the good news front, it means we know who they are and, unless their denials seem unusually sincere, i see no reason to ever trust them again
I made an heroic effort to set aside my own prejudices, preconceptions and decades long disillusionment with SLab and...he's still really, really crap.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.136297311
There are perhaps differences in our attitudes to the two belief systems, though - if only because there are ten times the number of Moslems as Jews in the UK.
Your 2nd para reads to me like special pleading and frankly a bit of a whinge. You want to be free to denounce without being yourself denounced? That sounds suspiciously akin to what you are accusing others of.
Your 3rd para, I agree with the general point but I don't agree that Islam as a religion or a culture is largely exempted from rational discussion. There can be some "cultural cringe" - which is unhealthy - but as can be seen right here and now, and elsewhere, there is nothing stopping people having a pop at the RoP.
It is nothing to do with Boris. The conservative side of the electorate will not vote for Farage in a Westminster election. They never have. Tories are largely Leavers and there is a deal o the table.
The opposition is a shambles and is caught in a racism row with a leader who, outside oc his cult, is regarded as useless. The LibDems are also taking votes from Labour but they will not get enough to form a govt.
There is only one way this will end.
Must say I feel less than confident trying to call this. Both the last two elections went surprising ways.
That's just a statement of fact.
So, to stick with religion, insulting, questioning, or criticising Christianity must be permitted (otherwise we have backward blasphemy laws), but discriminating against someone because they're Christian must not be.
Your 1st para implies there is no viable terrain between no free speech a la North Korea and a complete free-for-all where you can openly incite hatred and violence against others. I totally disagree with that. For me, there is a balance, free speech within the law and we have it about right, albeit I would never claim our framework is incapable of being improved.
Your 2nd para reads to me like special pleading and frankly a bit of a whinge. You want to be free to denounce without being yourself denounced? That sounds suspiciously akin to what you are accusing others of.
Your 3rd para, I agree with the general point but I don't agree that Islam as a religion or a culture is largely exempted from rational discussion. There can be some "cultural cringe" - which is unhealthy - but as can be seen right here and now, and elsewhere, there is nothing stopping people having a pop at the RoP.
No, I said in a previous post there would have to be obvious limits regarding the incitement of violence, terrorism, etc. 'Within the law' is all well and good until bad laws are passed and rationality is jettisoned for identity politics and political correctness. A phrase like 'Islamophobia' surely would not exist in a rational world. Actually, you could argue neither should religion, of any colour. Personally, I think everyone single one of us would be better off without it, but there you are. I can think of no other force in human history that has divided common cause more successfully than organised religion.
No. Read what I said again. The freedom for ALL - or nothing. The MCB would no doubt denounce me as an 'Islamophobe' if they read my comments, and because of that, I could be subjected to possible arrest. That cannot be right in a democracy, and would have once upon a time been utterly unthinkable in this country. It's not a whinge, it's an observation of how sometimes good intentions can be warped, willingly, to suit an agenda, political, cultural, or otherwise.
But here is a good example of what I said - you and I disagree, there's no abuse, certainly not from me, and a healthy, robust discussion ensues.
Bet accordingly.
This might be unpalatable to some in here but the Tories can hardly moralize when their leader is hardly a standard bearer for tolerance .
She has the X factor.
Humpty Dumpty seems the best fit for Boris, both because of the common shape and because of Humpty's linguistic gymnastics. As he says;
"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less". This seems to fit rather well with Boris' cavalier attitude to the truth.
Everyone ready for the second Mega Polling Saturday evening of the general election?
OK, so you are not a free speech absolutist. Fine.
A rational world would have a different word (i.e. not islamophobia) for anti-Muslim bigotry? OK, but I really can't get as exercised about that as you are.
As to you getting arrested for saying this sort of stuff? - C'mon.