Boris Johnson is pro immigrant when it suits him and anti when it suits him. A man of literally no principles whatsoever, an utter disgrace.
Better than Corbyn and his followers who are consistently antisemitic.
This again? Johnson and his follows are persistently Islamophobic and two of his candidates have been investigated for anti-Semitism. Don’t try and play the moral high ground card, you support a racist party and you’re a hypocrite.
I'm quite surprised Labour isn't anti-Islam. It appears to be a conservative ideology that is opposed to gay rights and equality for women.
You have to see it in the marxist mindset. Muslim = oppressed, the oppressed cant be oppressors, and Labour has to be on the side of the oppressed.
A number of us have suggested intelligent ways of addressing immigration on this forum over the years.
There is nothing new however in insulting people who live here, work here and have made this country their home by saying or implying that they are freeloaders or have no right to be here. That is a technique which is as old as the hills and utterly nasty. It shows a lack of common human decency.
Mr Johnson said: “I think people want to see democratic control. I don’t think people in this country are hostile to immigration at all, let alone being hostile to immigrants, but they want it democratically controlled and that’s what Brexit allows us to do.”
He isn't saying any of the things you accuse him of. He's just saying, in slightly longer words, that he opposes freedom of movement with the EU. At no stage has he suggested any form of attack on individuals who have already moved here and are contributing to society.
Migration from the EU could already be controlled even under FoM. The British government chose not to use the tools it had.
There is a case for looking intelligently at FoM and how it works within the EU. It is a case I have made myself in the past. But too often the argument about immigration in this country has not focused on the realities and the sorts of practical steps needed and the costs and benefits but has focused on individuals and groups in a way which suggests that they are freeloaders and not contributing. And it also ignores the fact that a very large part of the migration to this country comes from outside the EU and has always been under democratic control
People who have come here from other countries do feel that the atmosphere towards them has changed for the worse and is becoming more hostile. And that is in large part down to politicians like Boris and others. And I am afraid that after years of fuelling such an atmosphere in order to win a referendum and improve his career prospects, it is not enough to point to one interview and say “oh we like immigrants really - it’s just about democratic control”.
If he has not said the words suggested, good. As far as I am concerned anyone coming here to live and contribute makes this their home and is entitled to see it as “their” country. I don’t think the current Tories view this in the same way as me and it is one reason why they will not be getting my vote.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout is all you have, it’s pathetic.
You cannot take the moral high ground on racism and vote Tory. You just can’t.
If you vote for them anyway, fine but don’t pretend it’s an anti-racism vote.
Neither is a vote for Labour.
A true anti-racist vote seems to be for any party other than the main two. I’m happy to say I’m a hypocrite (even though I’m tactically voting LD) but I doubt many others are.
I don`t think that any of the parties are racist - but, putting that aside, why would you base a vote in a GE on racism anyway?
The problem is that any evidence of Islamophobia here is ignored.
Johnson said Muslim women look like bank robbers and letter boxes. That’s Islamophobic, whether he was protecting their right to wear these items of clothing or not. Imagine if Corbyn had argued against Jewish clothing, we know what the reaction would be.
I’m sure this candidate knows nothing about Islamophobia either:
If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round. s who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.
The would have been easier.
The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.
Hindsight thing.
If the majority is big enough then Boris will pivot to BINO and betray the ERG. Scorpion, frog, river, etc.
Hopefully. A swift move to a temporary EEA/EFA, secure fishing rights, citizenship rights, etc. But only temporary, every year Parliament will renew this temporary agreement... Just like income tax.
Boris's UK.
He'll etc.
That's why, if I were him, I'd secretly be hoping for a majority of about 80+
The alternative economic model that Johnson might threaten -
No, as I've said before the UK does have negotiating weight in this. It's not 0/100 to the EU in the EU's favour, and nor is it 3.5/96.5 (28/1) in the EU's favour.
It's more like 2:1 or 3:1, depending on the issue concerned.
Therefore, there will be concessions both ways.
The UK will decide what kind of deal it wants by fixing its red lines, the EU will then set the parameters, there will be back and forth on the detail with the UK getting some concessions. The tough bit will be the first part - we will need to recognise and accept that in setting certain red lines we will be excluding ourselves from certain important advantages. Basically, it will be a repeat of the last three years, but hopefully with the actual withdrawal detoxifying things somewhat. One thing the UK needs to get a much better understanding of is about how the EU works and what its motivations are. Preserving the integrity of the Single Market is the number one concern. The EU will not compromise on that.
You make the point, but I think slightly underestimate the benefit of having the withdrawal agreement out of the way. I think that sets a new “floor” in that the absolute minimum outcome this time is both sides working on agreeing what can be agreed, and having something in place even if we leave at the end of the year and a full negotiation hasn’t happened.
Basically, I think that means the real “full fat” no deal can’t now happen.
Boris Johnson is pro immigrant when it suits him and anti when it suits him. A man of literally no principles whatsoever, an utter disgrace.
Better than Corbyn and his followers who are consistently antisemitic.
This again? Johnson and his follows are persistently Islamophobic and two of his candidates have been investigated for anti-Semitism. Don’t try and play the moral high ground card, you support a racist party and you’re a hypocrite.
Johnsons not Islamophobic. Have you got anything to suggest he is besides his article he wrote defending people's rights to wear the niqab when there was talk of that misogynistic garment being banned like it was in many liberal EU nations?
He said "Islam is the problem", that it was natural to be afraid of Islam, and described Islam as "the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers". https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/
Which is correct. Read the article in full he is entirely correct.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout is all you have, it’s pathetic.
You cannot take the moral high ground on racism and vote Tory. You just can’t.
If you vote for them anyway, fine but don’t pretend it’s an anti-racism vote.
Neither is a vote for Labour.
A true anti-racist vote seems to be for any party other than the main two. I’m happy to say I’m a hypocrite (even though I’m tactically voting LD) but I doubt many others are.
I don`t think that any of the parties are racist - but, putting that aside, why would you base a vote in a GE on racism anyway?
Just seems odd to me.
I’m not, that’s my point. But several people have attempted to play the anti racism card by voting Tory. Both parties are fucked, that is the truth. But people are too partisan to see it.
Corbyn should resign straight after the election. I fully support the investigation. But the Tory Party should have one too, as the Muslim community has persistently called for.
Boris Johnson is pro immigrant when it suits him and anti when it suits him. A man of literally no principles whatsoever, an utter disgrace.
Better than Corbyn and his followers who are consistently antisemitic.
This again? Johnson and his follows are persistently Islamophobic and two of his candidates have been investigated for anti-Semitism. Don’t try and play the moral high ground card, you support a racist party and you’re a hypocrite.
Johnsons not Islamophobic. Have you got anything to suggest he is besides his article he wrote defending people's rights to wear the niqab when there was talk of that misogynistic garment being banned like it was in many liberal EU nations?
He said "Islam is the problem", that it was natural to be afraid of Islam, and described Islam as "the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers". https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/
Quit cherrypicked, those quotes.
Recommend commenters read the article.
They may need to google key search words for the article to find it behind the paywall.
Boris Johnson is pro immigrant when it suits him and anti when it suits him. A man of literally no principles whatsoever, an utter disgrace.
Better than Corbyn and his followers who are consistently antisemitic.
This again? Johnson and his follows are persistently Islamophobic and two of his candidates have been investigated for anti-Semitism. Don’t try and play the moral high ground card, you support a racist party and you’re a hypocrite.
Johnsons not Islamophobic. Have you got anything to suggest he is besides his article he wrote defending people's rights to wear the niqab when there was talk of that misogynistic garment being banned like it was in many liberal EU nations?
He said "Islam is the problem", that it was natural to be afraid of Islam, and described Islam as "the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers". https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/
Kemal Ataturk would have said much the same.
Indeed. And when it comes to Christianity you can see the likes of Martin Luther too. The idea a religion is infallible is dangerous extremism.
I simply do not believe that the Tories are 14 points ahead. That would require one out of every 8 Labour voters to now be voting Tory.
And if Survation are talking rubbish, then what's to stop them being 10 points off rather than 5?
We won’t know until polling day. But this just seems like a poll we don’t like so it’s wrong.
I blooming hope they’re wrong. I will be very sad if Johnson wins.
But if he does, Labour needs to do a lot of introspection and work out exactly what has gone wrong. That means dumping Corbyn straight away and starting afresh.
But in that case I’ll be a bystander. I don’t have the energy to be involved anymore.
It's simple. Most voters are in the centre, and Labour have decided to be very left-wing at the moment. Imagine if John Redwood was leading the Tories.
Or Nigel Farage..
Wait a minute..
It is a sad indictment of our current system and the terrible state that the Labour party is in that the current leadership of the Tory party can be considered closer to the political centre. The closest of the two parties to the centre wins; that even applied to Mrs Thatcher.
Boris Johnson is pro immigrant when it suits him and anti when it suits him. A man of literally no principles whatsoever, an utter disgrace.
Better than Corbyn and his followers who are consistently antisemitic.
This again? Johnson and his follows are persistently Islamophobic and two of his candidates have been investigated for anti-Semitism. Don’t try and play the moral high ground card, you support a racist party and you’re a hypocrite.
Johnsons not Islamophobic. Have you got anything to suggest he is besides his article he wrote defending people's rights to wear the niqab when there was talk of that misogynistic garment being banned like it was in many liberal EU nations?
He said "Islam is the problem", that it was natural to be afraid of Islam, and described Islam as "the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers". https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/
Quit cherrypicked, those quotes.
Recommend commenters read the article.
They may need to google key search words for the article to find it behind the paywall.
The centre moves. In Blairs time it was economically to the right, socially to the left. Today it is economically to the left and socially to the right.
The Torys are clearly closer to the centre than Labour.
At what point does "no overall majority" (currently 5.3) start to look attractive?
Absent a complete Yougov surprise, you’d the Tory majority has space to move in. That being the case, I’m thinking of going NOM at 2159 on Thursday as cover.
The problem is that any evidence of Islamophobia here is ignored.
Johnson said Muslim women look like bank robbers and letter boxes. That’s Islamophobic, whether he was protecting their right to wear these items of clothing or not. Imagine if Corbyn had argued against Jewish clothing, we know what the reaction would be.
I’m sure this candidate knows nothing about Islamophobia either:
...could be some good value bets in Labour pro-leave seats in Greater Manchester such as Denton and Reddish / Salford and Eccles (both above 10 on Betfair) / a bit less Worsley and Eccles South.
From the comfort of suburban south Manchester, it's very hard to see a great deal for the Tories in GM. In order of likelihood, I would put:
Bolton NE: outer GM; more Lancashire than Mancunian in character. Nearly 60% leave. Mix of working class and comfortable urban fringe middle class. BUT - quite a high Muslim vote. Bury North: in 2017 the Lib Dem candidate urged everyone to vote Labour. I don't know how much that impacted things, but can't have helped the Tory cause. Not as Leavey as Bolton NE but similar mix of w/c and comfortable urban fringe middle class. Probably a few more Guardians sold here in places like Ramsbottom. Also a Muslim vote, but smaller than Bury NE, I think. Bury South - surprisingly slightly more Brexity than Bury North, but still under 55%. Younger and more urban in character - Prestwich is very much the fashionable location for young urbanites in north GM, which doesn't stand in the Tories' favour. BUT heavily Jewish (I think it's in the top 5 most Jewish seats in the country).
After that, it's a bit of a struggle, because you get to seats which haven't been blue for a long, long time, if at all. My favourite is Stalybridge and Hyde, which is nearly 60% leave, very WWC, outer fringes of GM: there are some pleasant bits to it but it's not the kind of place that brims with recent graduates. Leigh has been touted (63% leave) but this is ex-mining territory and despite demographic changes here in recent years still seems to me too big a hill to climb. Worsley and Eccles South has been an outside chance for many years because Worsley is pretty middle class, but that sort of thing is no longer in the Tories favour and it is largely within the M60. Heywood and Middleton also seems too big a stretch - it may be that I am too familiar with it and so I am viewing it through the lens of how people used to vote two decades ago, but I wouldn't fancy the Tories here either. Oldham East and Saddleworth contains some Tory votes, but doesn't feel like the sort of seat to swing blue this election - too young, too Muslim.
Tories are very vulnerable to the Lib Dems in Cheadle and Hazel Grove. HG was always the LD's better bet but the nature of Tory votes has changed, and HG now looks the Tories better chance. Their saving grace in both these seats might be that the age profile here is a fair bit older than the GM average. I'd say HG hold, Cheadle lose to LDs.
I am interested to see what happens in Blackley and Broughton. I don't for a minute think Labour are going to lose this, but it is more Brexity than any of the other Manchester (City) seats, and it is also the second most Jewish seat in GM. I'd look for a much bigger swing against Labour than would be expected of a city seat.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout is all you have, it’s pathetic.
You cannot take the moral high ground on racism and vote Tory. You just can’t.
If you vote for them anyway, fine but don’t pretend it’s an anti-racism vote.
Neither is a vote for Labour.
A true anti-racist vote seems to be for any party other than the main two. I’m happy to say I’m a hypocrite (even though I’m tactically voting LD) but I doubt many others are.
I don`t think that any of the parties are racist - but, putting that aside, why would you base a vote in a GE on racism anyway?
Just seems odd to me.
I’m not, that’s my point. But several people have attempted to play the anti racism card by voting Tory. Both parties are fucked, that is the truth. But people are too partisan to see it.
Corbyn should resign straight after the election. I fully support the investigation. But the Tory Party should have one too, as the Muslim community has persistently called for.
'Both parties are f****d'
That's a good manifesto for PR, if ever I heard one. If Bollocks to Brexit is OK, maybe that's the next political slogan.
But how do we get it?
1974 - failed 1997 - failed 2010 - failed.
Two Tory rejections of it, one Labour. An all-party stitch up.
Boris Johnson is pro immigrant when it suits him and anti when it suits him. A man of literally no principles whatsoever, an utter disgrace.
Better than Corbyn and his followers who are consistently antisemitic.
This again? Johnson and his follows are persistently Islamophobic and two of his candidates have been investigated for anti-Semitism. Don’t try and play the moral high ground card, you support a racist party and you’re a hypocrite.
Johnsons not Islamophobic. Have you got anything to suggest he is besides his article he wrote defending people's rights to wear the niqab when there was talk of that misogynistic garment being banned like it was in many liberal EU nations?
He said "Islam is the problem", that it was natural to be afraid of Islam, and described Islam as "the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers". https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/
So? Islam is an ideology, it is quite reasonable to be opposed to it, and in particular those strands of it that support terror.
Islam is a religion. If you're saying the religion is the problem, then it's clear you are Islamophobic.
Assuming Tory get a majority and Corbyn decided to step down, he either: 1) does so immediately and hands over to a caretaker leader or 2) stays in post until the Labour leadership contest is finalised (in 2015 it took four months).
If you think 1), then McDonnell at 20/1 may be excellent value (check terms of the bet).
My money is on 2), so Corbyn leaving date "April - June 2020" at 8 with BF looks great value to me.
One thing I have noticed, especially after Survation, on social media Corbynite fans seem to be pumping out constantly negative messages about the Tories and especially Boris. Gone are any signs of the positive about the genius of Labour policies.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout is all you have, it’s pathetic.
You cannot take the moral high ground on racism and vote Tory. You just can’t.
If you vote for them anyway, fine but don’t pretend it’s an anti-racism vote.
Neither is a vote for Labour.
A true anti-racist vote seems to be for any party other than the main two. I’m happy to say I’m a hypocrite (even though I’m tactically voting LD) but I doubt many others are.
I don`t think that any of the parties are racist - but, putting that aside, why would you base a vote in a GE on racism anyway?
Just seems odd to me.
I’m not, that’s my point. But several people have attempted to play the anti racism card by voting Tory. Both parties are fucked, that is the truth. But people are too partisan to see it.
Corbyn should resign straight after the election. I fully support the investigation. But the Tory Party should have one too, as the Muslim community has persistently called for.
I think you need to identify "The Muslim community" here. For one, in the ME the Saudis and Iranians are often at each others throats, and what about eg the Ahmadis - against whom some 'Muslim' countries have passed laws saying they are not Muslims. They are based in London because they were persecuted out of, I think, Pakistan.
For the record, I think the Tories should have had an investigation some time ago - imo their evidenced-so-far problems are a pinprick compared to Lab antisemitism.
"Labour will use people's assemblies to help decide how nationalised utilities are run, says McDonnell"
I wonder what Rory would think..
The idea of people's assemblies deciding whether you can have a broadband line is not an encouraging one IMO. Arguably it would be a return to the sort of busybody-ism that most people were very glad to see the back of about 40 or 50 years ago.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout is all you have, it’s pathetic.
You cannot take the moral high ground on racism and vote Tory. You just can’t.
If you vote for them anyway, fine but don’t pretend it’s an anti-racism vote.
Neither is a vote for Labour.
A true anti-racist vote seems to be for any party other than the main two. I’m happy to say I’m a hypocrite (even though I’m tactically voting LD) but I doubt many others are.
I don`t think that any of the parties are racist - but, putting that aside, why would you base a vote in a GE on racism anyway?
Just seems odd to me.
I’m not, that’s my point. But several people have attempted to play the anti racism card by voting Tory. Both parties are fucked, that is the truth. But people are too partisan to see it.
Corbyn should resign straight after the election. I fully support the investigation. But the Tory Party should have one too, as the Muslim community has persistently called for.
'Both parties are f****d'
That's a good manifesto for PR, if ever I heard one. If Bollocks to Brexshit is OK, maybe that's the next political slogan.
But how do we get it?
1974 - failed 1997 - failed 2010 - failed.
Two Tory rejections of it, one Labour. An all-party stitch up.
I hope the next Labour leader embraces PR. Perhaps then they can work with the Lib Dems as per 1997 quietly and get elected then implement it. Then Labour can split and we can have proper parties fit for the 21st century.
I am supportive of Starmer being senior or the leader. My only concern with him is the appeal to the North. But perhaps it won’t matter after things haven’t got better for the North after Johnson fucks them over.
Getting random members of the public to decide direction of national infrastructure has to be up there with some of the dumbest ideas Labour are proposing. What does Brenda from Bognar know about the complexities of nuclear power, R&D of solar power technologies, demand curves, etc.
I want a return to expert evidence based policy, behavioural insight group, etc, not this shit.
The question the LibDems will have is, given how piss poor Corbyn is and how personally unpopular Johnson is, why didn't they do better? Sure, they'll increase their number of seats and their vote share (and one shouldn't forget how low they were laid in 2015). But they should have done better, and there's little doubt that Mrs Swinson is going to need to improve, if the LDs are to go much further.
In "Prime Minister" Jo Swinson, the LibDems seem to have found the only person more piss poor than Corbyn and more personally unpopular than Johnson. Allied to Revoke, the singular most unpopular policy of the election.
Some of us did say it was going to be this way. Mirror Labour's Brexit policy without any of Labour's bat-shit crazy spending plans and aim to get out the other side of Brexit without being the party of Rejoin - then they could have had something to rebuild for. But after this election they will need to go away and work out who they are for, every bit as much as Labour.
Care to say what the Tories are "for", other than being in power? And playing it by Bannon every time there's an election?
Boris Johnson is pro immigrant when it suits him and anti when it suits him. A man of literally no principles whatsoever, an utter disgrace.
Better than Corbyn and his followers who are consistently antisemitic.
This again? Johnson and his follows are persistently Islamophobic and two of his candidates have been investigated for anti-Semitism. Don’t try and play the moral high ground card, you support a racist party and you’re a hypocrite.
Johnsons not Islamophobic. Have you got anything to suggest he is besides his article he wrote defending people's rights to wear the niqab when there was talk of that misogynistic garment being banned like it was in many liberal EU nations?
He said "Islam is the problem", that it was natural to be afraid of Islam, and described Islam as "the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers". https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/
So? Islam is an ideology, it is quite reasonable to be opposed to it, and in particular those strands of it that support terror.
Islam is a religion. If you're saying the religion is the problem, then it's clear you are Islamophobic.
I don`t think anyone is saying "Islam is the problem" are they? Only that the very small percentage of Muslims who use Islam to justify violence is the problem. The latter is a fact - it is not racist.
Frankly I’d vote for whoever tactically to get PR with enthusiasm. If a centrist Labour is offering it I’ll vote for them even if their policies are unremarkable. Because for the future it will be worth it.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout is all you have, it’s pathetic.
You cannot take the moral high ground on racism and vote Tory. You just can’t.
If you vote for them anyway, fine but don’t pretend it’s an anti-racism vote.
Neither is a vote for Labour.
A true anti-racist vote seems to be for any party other than the main two. I’m happy to say I’m a hypocrite (even though I’m tactically voting LD) but I doubt many others are.
I don`t think that any of the parties are racist - but, putting that aside, why would you base a vote in a GE on racism anyway?
Just seems odd to me.
I’m not, that’s my point. But several people have attempted to play the anti racism card by voting Tory. Both parties are fucked, that is the truth. But people are too partisan to see it.
Corbyn should resign straight after the election. I fully support the investigation. But the Tory Party should have one too, as the Muslim community has persistently called for.
I agree that the Tories should have an investigation and wrote a thread header about why and how they should do it.
But be wary about assuming that the Muslim Council of Britain represents all Muslims. It does not. It is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and has some pretty extremist views of its own and an agenda that is far from liberal. The Tories absolutely need to bear down on anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-semitism in their own party but they absolutely should not be taking advice from the MCB.
This is entirely obvious. That's why Johnson has made a mistake in campaigning as he has. He would have beaten Corbyn anyway, but he has set himself up to disappoint people now.
Getting random members of the public to decide direction of national infrastructure has to be up there with some of the dumbest ideas Labour are proposing. What does Brenda from Bognar know about the complexities of nuclear power, R&D of solar power technologies, demand curves, etc.
I'm reminded of the parents forums that are sometimes held at my sons school. The staff are trying to explain what they are trying to do about staffing etc, but keep getting interrupted by a couple of parents who have turned up just so they can complain about their daughter getting in trouble for not wearing the correct uniform last week.
And as a result, the whole thing is a waste of time.
The weather forecast has firmed up and Thursday is forecast to be very wet, I've checked forecasts for most parts of Britain and it appears to be raining everywhere, all day. Some of the rain will be showery so there will be some gaps but it won't be dry anywhere.
This will reduce turnout, but it's harder to say if any party will benefit, it use to said that rain helped the Tories and it may still do so but I don't think it does so much these days.
It's also Winter, which will only exacerbate people's reluctance to venture out on polling day.
I think turnout will be lower than previously thought and people planning to vote tactically could be to most likely to not bother.
Why would rain reduce turnout? People of all ages have been braving the rain in Britain for thousands of years without too much trouble.
Of course it will reduce turnout, by how much is the moot point. There are people who will stay at home because of the bad weather but there is nobody who won't go to the polling station just because it's not raining.
When I was knocking up once for a by-election it was a very very hot and sticky evening, it turned out to be the hottest day of that year, I found that I couldn't get people who said that they would support us out because it was so uncomfortably humid.
This time it's going to be cold as well as wet and the parties won't be able to recruit as many knocker-upers as they might have done.
If the Tories do win a substantial majority, then there will be plenty of blame to go round. s who missed the boat, once, twice, three times, four times.
The would have been easier.
The DUP are just so focused on proving how tough they are that they never seemed to consider that might lose leverage.
Hindsight thing.
If the majority is big enough then Boris will pivot to BINO and betray the ERG. Scorpion, frog, river, etc.
Hopefully. A swift move to a temporary EEA/EFA, secure fishing rights, citizenship rights, etc. But only temporary, every year Parliament will renew this temporary agreement... Just like income tax.
Boris's UK.
He'll etc.
That's why, if I were him, I'd secretly be hoping for a majority of about 80+
The alternative economic model that Johnson might threaten -
No, as I've said before the UK does have negotiating weight in this. It's not 0/100 to the EU in the EU's favour, and nor is it 3.5/96.5 (28/1) in the EU's favour.
It's more like 2:1 or 3:1, depending on the issue concerned.
Therefore, there will be concessions both ways.
The UK will decide what kind of deal it wants by fixing its red lines, the EU will then set the parameters, there will be back and forth on the detail with the UK getting some concessions. The tough bit will be the first part - we will need to recognise and accept that in setting certain red lines we will be excluding ourselves from certain important advantages. Basically, it will be a repeat of the last three years, but hopefully with the actual withdrawal detoxifying things somewhat. One thing the UK needs to get a much better understanding of is about how the EU works and what its motivations are. Preserving the integrity of the Single Market is the number one concern. The EU will not compromise on that.
You make the point, but I think slightly underestimate the benefit of having the withdrawal agreement out of the way. I think that sets a new “floor” in that the absolute minimum outcome this time is both sides working on agreeing what can be agreed, and having something in place even if we leave at the end of the year and a full negotiation hasn’t happened.
Basically, I think that means the real “full fat” no deal can’t now happen.
Yep, I agree - that's one of the benefits of Johnson giving the EU what it wanted on Northern Ireland.
This from John McDonnell is hilarious, an updated Cones Hotline remixed with Stalinist People's Commissars deciding how the electricity supply should work:
In our first hundred days we will start the process of bringing water and energy into public ownership. We’ll set up boards to run these utilities made up of who, the customer, and you, the worker, as well as representatives from local councils, metro mayors and others.
We’ll make sure decisions are taken locally by those who understand the services – those who use them and deliver them.
Meetings will be public and streamed online, with new transparency regulations set higher than ever before, so you can see if your road is being dug up, why, and for how long. And we’ll create new people’s assemblies to give everyone the option of participating in how their utilities are run.
One thing I have noticed, especially after Survation, on social media Corbynite fans seem to be pumping out constantly negative messages about the Tories and especially Boris. Gone are any signs of the positive about the genius of Labour policies.
The Tories have their gutter press to pump out the negative stories and I include the Telegraph in that.
I don`t think anyone is saying "Islam is the problem" are they? Only that the very small percentage of Muslims who use Islam to justify violence is the problem. The latter is a fact - it is not racist.
Btw I think your tip on Corbyn going in April - June is a good shout. There will be very little trust on the left about shenanigans to try and keep candidates off the ballot after the attempts to exclude Corbyn from his own leadership challenge.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout is all you have, it’s pathetic.
You cannot take the moral high ground on racism and vote Tory. You just can’t.
If you vote for them anyway, fine but don’t pretend it’s an anti-racism vote.
Neither is a vote for Labour.
A true anti-racist vote seems to be for any party other than the main two. I’m happy to say I’m a hypocrite (even though I’m tactically voting LD) but I doubt many others are.
I don`t think that any of the parties are racist - but, putting that aside, why would you base a vote in a GE on racism anyway?
Just seems odd to me.
I’m not, that’s my point. But several people have attempted to play the anti racism card by voting Tory. Both parties are fucked, that is the truth. But people are too partisan to see it.
Corbyn should resign straight after the election. I fully support the investigation. But the Tory Party should have one too, as the Muslim community has persistently called for.
I agree that the Tories should have an investigation and wrote a thread header about why and how they should do it.
But be wary about assuming that the Muslim Council of Britain represents all Muslims. It does not. It is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and has some pretty extremist views of its own and an agenda that is far from liberal. The Tories absolutely need to bear down on anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-semitism in their own party but they absolutely should not be taking advice from the MCB.
It always raises my liberal hackles when people say things like "the muslim community". Corbyn can hardly utter a sentence without "community" being in it. Where are these communities? Where is the individual in all this?
Getting random members of the public to decide direction of national infrastructure has to be up there with some of the dumbest ideas Labour are proposing. What does Brenda from Bognar know about the complexities of nuclear power, R&D of solar power technologies, demand curves, etc.
I'm reminded of the parents forums that are sometimes held at my sons school. The staff are trying to explain what they are trying to do about staffing etc, but keep getting interrupted by a couple of parents who have turned up just so they can complain about their daughter getting in trouble for not wearing the correct uniform last week.
And as a result, the whole thing is a waste of time.
The thing is also most normal people want to get on with their lives, they don't want to be sitting in talking shops about if a wind turbine farm should be located in spot x or y. They want the government to assess this.
As a result, you end up with most of these things stuffed full of political people with an agenda, just like QT audiences.
That's exactly right, he caved in to the EU and stuffed the DUP. He's also removed a number of One Nation Tories and convinced the electorate that Brexit will be finished very soon. None of which is particularly good (apart from the DUP bit) for us, but will probably be good for Boris - for a while.
Whatabout whatabout whatabout is all you have, it’s pathetic.
You cannot take the moral high ground on racism and vote Tory. You just can’t.
If you vote for them anyway, fine but don’t pretend it’s an anti-racism vote.
Neither is a vote for Labour.
A true anti-racist vote seems to be for any party other than the main two. I’m happy to say I’m a hypocrite (even though I’m tactically voting LD) but I doubt many others are.
I don`t think that any of the parties are racist - but, putting that aside, why would you base a vote in a GE on racism anyway?
Just seems odd to me.
I’m not, that’s my point. But several people have attempted to play the anti racism card by voting Tory. Both parties are fucked, that is the truth. But people are too partisan to see it.
Corbyn should resign straight after the election. I fully support the investigation. But the Tory Party should have one too, as the Muslim community has persistently called for.
I agree that the Tories should have an investigation and wrote a thread header about why and how they should do it.
But be wary about assuming that the Muslim Council of Britain represents all Muslims. It does not. It is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and has some pretty extremist views of its own and an agenda that is far from liberal. The Tories absolutely need to bear down on anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-semitism in their own party but they absolutely should not be taking advice from the MCB.
Fair point. But that’s just as applicable some would argue say to the JLM, or equally to JVL. Neither represents all Jews.
But I agree with you on the more general point - and it isn’t only that organisation calling for an investigation, many others are too. I only used them as an example.
"Labour will use people's assemblies to help decide how nationalised utilities are run, says McDonnell"
I wonder what Rory would think..
The idea of people's assemblies deciding whether you can have a broadband line is not an encouraging one IMO. Arguably it would be a return to the sort of busybody-ism that most people were very glad to see the back of about 40 or 50 years ago.
Peoples and citizens assemblies are amongst the oddest developments of the last few years. Almost universally proposed for problems that politicians dont have the courage to carry out.
It's quite simple how they work. Imagine a court case. The case for the prosecution is put by an expert barrister. The jury listen and become 'informed' and directed to make the 'correct' decision. There is no barrister for the defence. Any jurors who having listened to the prosecution may ask questions in which they will be expertly told that there is no case for other positions.
One thing I have noticed, especially after Survation, on social media Corbynite fans seem to be pumping out constantly negative messages about the Tories and especially Boris. Gone are any signs of the positive about the genius of Labour policies.
The Tories have their gutter press to pump out the negative stories and I include the Telegraph in that.
And, whats that got to do with the fact Corbyn fans on social media have entirely switched to a negative message. Gone are the promises of a sunny Socialist utopia.
I can't say I've ever felt a burning desire to participate in how utilities are run, but I guess that sort of thing excites some voters.
Sounds unnecessarily complicated and participatory to me. It would be better to just have it owned by government, make them pay their taxes, and have some kind of public consultation for improvements every year or two.
Getting random members of the public to decide direction of national infrastructure has to be up there with some of the dumbest ideas Labour are proposing. What does Brenda from Bognar know about the complexities of nuclear power, R&D of solar power technologies, demand curves, etc.
I'm reminded of the parents forums that are sometimes held at my sons school. The staff are trying to explain what they are trying to do about staffing etc, but keep getting interrupted by a couple of parents who have turned up just so they can complain about their daughter getting in trouble for not wearing the correct uniform last week.
And as a result, the whole thing is a waste of time.
The thing is also most normal people want to get on with their lives, they don't want to be sitting in talking shops about if a wind turbine farm should be located in spot x or y. They want the government to assess this.
As a result, you end up with most of these things stuffed full of political people with an agenda, just like QT audiences.
It would attract busybodies who enjoy making life difficult for the sake of it.
"Labour will use people's assemblies to help decide how nationalised utilities are run, says McDonnell"
I wonder what Rory would think..
The idea of people's assemblies deciding whether you can have a broadband line is not an encouraging one IMO. Arguably it would be a return to the sort of busybody-ism that most people were very glad to see the back of about 40 or 50 years ago.
Peoples and citizens assemblies are amongst the oddest developments of the last few years. Almost universally proposed for problems that politicians dont have the courage to carry out.
It's quite simple how they work. Imagine a court case. The case for the prosecution is put by an expert barrister. The jury listen and become 'informed' and directed to make the 'correct' decision. There is no barrister for the defence. Any jurors who having listened to the prosecution may ask questions in which they will be expertly told that there is no case for other positions.
Utter utter scam.
Is this much different from a Grand Jury as used in the USA ?
One thing I have noticed, especially after Survation, on social media Corbynite fans seem to be pumping out constantly negative messages about the Tories and especially Boris. Gone are any signs of the positive about the genius of Labour policies.
The Tories have their gutter press to pump out the negative stories and I include the Telegraph in that.
And, whats that got to do with the fact Corbyn fans on social media have entirely switched to a negative message. Gone are the promises of a sunny Socialist utopia.
I don't understand what you're driving at. It's because we think we're going to lose and we're unhappy about it. Is that so surprising or unreasonable?
I don`t think anyone is saying "Islam is the problem" are they? Only that the very small percentage of Muslims who use Islam to justify violence is the problem. The latter is a fact - it is not racist.
Btw I think your tip on Corbyn going in April - June is a good shout. There will be very little trust on the left about shenanigans to try and keep candidates off the ballot after the attempts to exclude Corbyn from his own leadership challenge.
Yes, but they have changed the rules as outlined by Herdson in a recent header thus making it difficult for any potential candidate who is not hard left to get onto the ballet.
Herdson pointed out that Cooper and Kendall wouldn`t have got onto the ballot in 2015 if the current rules were in place then.
Rebecca LB is looking pretty nailed on in my view. I had £50 on her at 28/1 ages ago but I`m not biased.
This from John McDonnell is hilarious, an updated Cones Hotline remixed with Stalinist People's Commissars deciding how the electricity supply should work:
In our first hundred days we will start the process of bringing water and energy into public ownership. We’ll set up boards to run these utilities made up of who, the customer, and you, the worker, as well as representatives from local councils, metro mayors and others.
We’ll make sure decisions are taken locally by those who understand the services – those who use them and deliver them.
Meetings will be public and streamed online, with new transparency regulations set higher than ever before, so you can see if your road is being dug up, why, and for how long. And we’ll create new people’s assemblies to give everyone the option of participating in how their utilities are run.
Boris Johnson is pro immigrant when it suits him and anti when it suits him. A man of literally no principles whatsoever, an utter disgrace.
Better than Corbyn and his followers who are consistently antisemitic.
This again? Johnson and his follows are persistently Islamophobic and two of his candidates have been investigated for anti-Semitism. Don’t try and play the moral high ground card, you support a racist party and you’re a hypocrite.
Johnsons not Islamophobic. Have you got anything to suggest he is besides his article he wrote defending people's rights to wear the niqab when there was talk of that misogynistic garment being banned like it was in many liberal EU nations?
He said "Islam is the problem", that it was natural to be afraid of Islam, and described Islam as "the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers". https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/
So? Islam is an ideology, it is quite reasonable to be opposed to it, and in particular those strands of it that support terror.
Islam is a religion. If you're saying the religion is the problem, then it's clear you are Islamophobic.
Actually I think moderate Islam is a relatively rational, sensible religion. Certainly compared with some strands of Christianity. But are you really saying that opposition to the tenets of a religion makes you a racist "phobe"? In which case I'd say that a large part of the Labour Party are racist Christianphobes. Islamophobia is hatred of Muslims, not opposition to Islam. If the Labour Party was doing its job properly, it would be seeking to liberate the Muslims of the East End from their imams. That sounds more like socialism to me.
Getting random members of the public to decide direction of national infrastructure has to be up there with some of the dumbest ideas Labour are proposing. What does Brenda from Bognar know about the complexities of nuclear power, R&D of solar power technologies, demand curves, etc.
I want a return to expert evidence based policy, behavioural insight group, etc, not this shit.
The kind of person who is likely to want to get onto these assemblies is the kind of crank who complains about mobile signals causing cancer, and masts causing property blight. They cause enough trouble as it is, without giving them some real power.
This from John McDonnell is hilarious, an updated Cones Hotline remixed with Stalinist People's Commissars deciding how the electricity supply should work:
In our first hundred days we will start the process of bringing water and energy into public ownership. We’ll set up boards to run these utilities made up of who, the customer, and you, the worker, as well as representatives from local councils, metro mayors and others.
We’ll make sure decisions are taken locally by those who understand the services – those who use them and deliver them.
Meetings will be public and streamed online, with new transparency regulations set higher than ever before, so you can see if your road is being dug up, why, and for how long. And we’ll create new people’s assemblies to give everyone the option of participating in how their utilities are run.
I can't say I've ever felt a burning desire to participate in how utilities are run, but I guess that sort of thing excites some voters.
"locals who understand the services" - What the hell does the average man in the street know about for instance 5G technology? Or the requirements for a waste treatment plant? etc.
Getting random members of the public to decide direction of national infrastructure has to be up there with some of the dumbest ideas Labour are proposing. What does Brenda from Bognar know about the complexities of nuclear power, R&D of solar power technologies, demand curves, etc.
I want a return to expert evidence based policy, behavioural insight group, etc, not this shit.
If my limited exposure to an event held a few years ago at the behest of the so-called Black Country Peoples' Assembly is anything to go by, it will turn into a bunfight between factions from the CPGB, SWP, Socialist Action, Socialist Party, Peoples' Front of Judea and the Judean Peoples' Front. The only thing that united them more than their contempt for each other was their shared contempt for the Labour Party. My local Constituency Labour Party is now run by several of them.
I don't see any evidence of institutional racism in the Conservative party. I think that it panders ot xenophobes and that it does not do close to enough to tackle racism among its membership, but I do not see procedures and processes that militate against members of certain minorities. This is why Labour is being investigated by the EHRC: there is evidence that such procedures and processes do exist with regard to Jews. One example: it is alleged that Orthodox Jews applying to join the party in Tottenham were required to agree to a home visit in advance of their application being approved. This only applied to Orthodox Jews. That is process and procedure (and it is horrifying). Do the Tories do this with Moslems? I do not think this has ever been suggested.
One thing I have noticed, especially after Survation, on social media Corbynite fans seem to be pumping out constantly negative messages about the Tories and especially Boris. Gone are any signs of the positive about the genius of Labour policies.
The Tories have their gutter press to pump out the negative stories and I include the Telegraph in that.
And, whats that got to do with the fact Corbyn fans on social media have entirely switched to a negative message. Gone are the promises of a sunny Socialist utopia.
I haven’t really noticed a change myself. It’s been very negative for a few weeks now.
Boris Johnson is pro immigrant when it suits him and anti when it suits him. A man of literally no principles whatsoever, an utter disgrace.
Better than Corbyn and his followers who are consistently antisemitic.
This again? Johnson and his follows are persistently Islamophobic and two of his candidates have been investigated for anti-Semitism. Don’t try and play the moral high ground card, you support a racist party and you’re a hypocrite.
Johnsons not Islamophobic. Have you got anything to suggest he is besides his article he wrote defending people's rights to wear the niqab when there was talk of that misogynistic garment being banned like it was in many liberal EU nations?
He said "Islam is the problem", that it was natural to be afraid of Islam, and described Islam as "the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers". https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/
So? Islam is an ideology, it is quite reasonable to be opposed to it, and in particular those strands of it that support terror.
Islam is a religion. If you're saying the religion is the problem, then it's clear you are Islamophobic.
Not true at all.
Religion is a problem. I'm an atheist and I'm happy to argue that extreme beliefs in organised religion is a serious problem - not just Islam but Christianity and others too. Extremists who believe that their religion is the infallible word of God are the problem. Religions are flawed constructs and we get around that in the modern era by junking the parts of religion that are problematic. We either pretend they don't exist or acknowledge they do but belong to another era not today - those who insist that all of the religion is relevant to today ARE THE PROBLEM and that is not Islamophobic it is as relevant to Christianity and any other religion.
If you want to get into a theological discussion I could quote passages from the Bible and the Koran until well past polling day but yes there are problems in religion and anyone who is blind to that is the problem too. It is not racist to say there are problems in religions.
One of the best shootdowns of [in this case Christian] extreme interpretations of religion was on The West Wing when the Catholic President on election day tackles religious extremism with respect to homosexuality. If you have a couple of minutes watch this and tell me if it is Christianphobic or whatever the right word is? Saying the same thing about Islam is not Islamophobic.
Getting random members of the public to decide direction of national infrastructure has to be up there with some of the dumbest ideas Labour are proposing. What does Brenda from Bognar know about the complexities of nuclear power, R&D of solar power technologies, demand curves, etc.
I want a return to expert evidence based policy, behavioural insight group, etc, not this shit.
The People's Assembly idea is in conjunction with experts, as had reasonable success in Ireland. You could equally say Rory Stewart's People's Assembly Brexit idea is flawed in the same way - but I think both might be good.
I don't see any evidence of institutional racism in the Conservative party. I htiunk that it is home to a lot of xenophobes and that it does not do close to enough to tackle racism among its membership, but I do not see procedures and processes that militate against members of certain minorities. This is why Labour is being investigated by the EHRC: there is evidence that such procedures and processes do exist in the Labour party with regard to Jews. One example: it is alleged that Orthodox Jews applying to join the party in Tottenham were required to agree to a home visit in advance of their application being approved. This only applied to Orthodox Jews. That is process and procedure (and it is horrifying). Do the Tories do this with Moslems? I do not think this has ever been suggested.
It`s a smoke-screen to divert attention from Labour`s woes. Partially successful, unfortunately.
The one posted yesterday that plotted Tory Majority vs Seats Leave percentage was so brilliant in it's simplicity. It really made clear what the YouGov MRP was suggesting was going to happen.
Getting random members of the public to decide direction of national infrastructure has to be up there with some of the dumbest ideas Labour are proposing. What does Brenda from Bognar know about the complexities of nuclear power, R&D of solar power technologies, demand curves, etc.
I'm reminded of the parents forums that are sometimes held at my sons school. The staff are trying to explain what they are trying to do about staffing etc, but keep getting interrupted by a couple of parents who have turned up just so they can complain about their daughter getting in trouble for not wearing the correct uniform last week.
And as a result, the whole thing is a waste of time.
The thing is also most normal people want to get on with their lives, they don't want to be sitting in talking shops about if a wind turbine farm should be located in spot x or y. They want the government to assess this.
As a result, you end up with most of these things stuffed full of political people with an agenda, just like QT audiences.
I don't see any evidence of institutional racism in the Conservative party. I think that it panders ot xenophobes and that it does not do close to enough to tackle racism among its membership, but I do not see procedures and processes that militate against members of certain minorities. This is why Labour is being investigated by the EHRC: there is evidence that such procedures and processes do exist with regard to Jews. One example: it is alleged that Orthodox Jews applying to join the party in Tottenham were required to agree to a home visit in advance of their application being approved. This only applied to Orthodox Jews. That is process and procedure (and it is horrifying). Do the Tories do this with Moslems? I do not think this has ever been suggested.
The Conservative Party is very far from clear on racism, as countless ex-members have attested, and the polling on tory supporters suggests 40% anti-semitism, rather than 32% for Labour. The Liberal Democrats come out best.
The problem is that any evidence of Islamophobia here is ignored.
Johnson said Muslim women look like bank robbers and letter boxes. That’s Islamophobic, whether he was protecting their right to wear these items of clothing or not. Imagine if Corbyn had argued against Jewish clothing, we know what the reaction would be.
I’m sure this candidate knows nothing about Islamophobia either:
Yes, but they have changed the rules as outlined by Herdson in a recent header thus making it difficult for any potential candidate who is not hard left to get onto the ballet.
Herdson pointed out that Cooper and Kendall wouldn`t have got onto the ballot in 2015 if the current rules were in place then.
Rebecca LB is looking pretty nailed on in my view. I had £50 on her at 28/1 ages ago but I`m not biased.
Last time the rules were pretty clear that Corbyn didn't need to be renominated by MPs, but certain elements in the party nearly prevented him from getting on the ballot and there had to be a court case.
RLB is my second biggest red. Jess Philips would be great for my book. I'm pretty confident she'll stand, she's previously said she's interested. As long as she doesn't start off by criticizing Momentum, I think she'd have a good chance.
This from John McDonnell is hilarious, an updated Cones Hotline remixed with Stalinist People's Commissars deciding how the electricity supply should work:
In our first hundred days we will start the process of bringing water and energy into public ownership. We’ll set up boards to run these utilities made up of who, the customer, and you, the worker, as well as representatives from local councils, metro mayors and others.
We’ll make sure decisions are taken locally by those who understand the services – those who use them and deliver them.
Meetings will be public and streamed online, with new transparency regulations set higher than ever before, so you can see if your road is being dug up, why, and for how long. And we’ll create new people’s assemblies to give everyone the option of participating in how their utilities are run.
I can't say I've ever felt a burning desire to participate in how utilities are run, but I guess that sort of thing excites some voters.
"locals who understand the services" - What the hell does the average man in the street know about for instance 5G technology? Or the requirements for a waste treatment plant? etc.
Just one expert that uses the word "radiation" and everything will be f*cked.
If the Tory Party is so clearly not Islamophobic, why would Johnson agree to an investigation on that specific issue and then immediately water it down? It would only be because he knows the results of it would not be good.
Getting random members of the public to decide direction of national infrastructure has to be up there with some of the dumbest ideas Labour are proposing. What does Brenda from Bognar know about the complexities of nuclear power, R&D of solar power technologies, demand curves, etc.
I want a return to expert evidence based policy, behavioural insight group, etc, not this shit.
The People's Assembly idea is in conjunction with experts, as had reasonable success in Ireland. You could equally say Rory Stewart's People's Assembly Brexit idea is flawed in the same way - but I think both might be good.
I can see the logic of the one that had on abortion. That is a social issue that has divided their society for many many years.
Can someone tell me if you are old enough to remember, did it feel like the tories were going to win big in 1987 or 1983? Because right now it doesn't *feel* like it?
The one posted yesterday that plotted Tory Majority vs Seats Leave percentage was so brilliant in it's simplicity. It really made clear what the YouGov MRP was suggesting was going to happen.
Can someone tell me if you are old enough to remember, did it feel like the tories were going to win big in 1987 or 1983? Because right now it doesn't *feel* like it?
The first election I took an interest in was 1992 so I can't help. Interesting question though.
A detailed analysis of the tax increases hidden in the party’s manifesto – and how they relate to small businesses – disproves Labour’s ‘pledge’ that only those earning more than £80,000 stand to lose out from their proposals. Just look at self-employed people operating as limited companies, who stand to pay as much as 45% more tax under John McDonnell’s plans.
That's exactly right, he caved in to the EU and stuffed the DUP. He's also removed a number of One Nation Tories and convinced the electorate that Brexit will be finished very soon. None of which is particularly good (apart from the DUP bit) for us, but will probably be good for Boris - for a while.
I think selling the DUP down the river will be seen as positive by the majority of the electorate.
Religion is a problem. I'm an atheist and I'm happy to argue that extreme beliefs in organised religion is a serious problem - not just Islam but Christianity and others too. Extremists who believe that their religion is the infallible word of God are the problem. Religions are flawed constructs and we get around that in the modern era by junking the parts of religion that are problematic. We either pretend they don't exist or acknowledge they do but belong to another era not today - those who insist that all of the religion is relevant to today ARE THE PROBLEM and that is not Islamophobic it is as relevant to Christianity and any other religion.
If you want to get into a theological discussion I could quote passages from the Bible and the Koran until well past polling day but yes there are problems in religion and anyone who is blind to that is the problem too. It is not racist to say there are problems in religions.
One of the best shootdowns of [in this case Christian] extreme interpretations of religion was on The West Wing when the Catholic President on election day tackles religious extremism with respect to homosexuality. If you have a couple of minutes watch this and tell me if it is Christianphobic or whatever the right word is? Saying the same thing about Islam is not Islamophobic.
Love the West Wing. Religion is not a problem, violent religious extremists are. That's not a difficult distinction to draw. If you don't draw that distinction, then yes you are Christeo/whatever-phobic.
The problem is that any evidence of Islamophobia here is ignored.
Johnson said Muslim women look like bank robbers and letter boxes. That’s Islamophobic, whether he was protecting their right to wear these items of clothing or not. Imagine if Corbyn had argued against Jewish clothing, we know what the reaction would be.
I’m sure this candidate knows nothing about Islamophobia either:
Are you so Islamophobic that you think Muslim = niqab?
Or do you accept and understand that there are over a billion Muslims who don't wear it? And that it isn't Islam?
It's a typically British liberal position. You look stupid wearing it, but there is no justification in stopping you making a fool of yourself.
Precisely! And the ability to ridicule the extreme and make it a joke is typically British too. The niqab is extremist and misogynistic, it is not racist to say that. Those who wear it do look like ridiculous, it is not racist to say that. And there is no race that demand it be worn, it is not racist to say that.
Can someone tell me if you are old enough to remember, did it feel like the tories were going to win big in 1987 or 1983? Because right now it doesn't *feel* like it?
I'm old enough, I was a candidate in 1983. It felt like the Tory landslide that it was, delviered by the voters with conviction. Oddly I don't remember 1987 as clearly. Now, it feels like a comfortable Tory win, delivered very unenthusiastically.
Yes, but they have changed the rules as outlined by Herdson in a recent header thus making it difficult for any potential candidate who is not hard left to get onto the ballet.
Herdson pointed out that Cooper and Kendall wouldn`t have got onto the ballot in 2015 if the current rules were in place then.
Rebecca LB is looking pretty nailed on in my view. I had £50 on her at 28/1 ages ago but I`m not biased.
Last time the rules were pretty clear that Corbyn didn't need to be renominated by MPs, but certain elements in the party nearly prevented him from getting on the ballot and there had to be a court case.
RLB is my second biggest red. Jess Philips would be great for my book. I'm pretty confident she'll stand, she's previously said she's interested. As long as she doesn't start off by criticizing Momentum, I think she'd have a good chance.
The 2015 rules were that 15% of the parliamentary party needed to nominate a candidate. Corbyn got over that level, but only because a few non-Corbyn supporting MPs nominated him to "broaden the date". This was wrong. He should never really have become leader.
Religion is a problem. I'm an atheist and I'm happy to argue that extreme beliefs in organised religion is a serious problem - not just Islam but Christianity and others too. Extremists who believe that their religion is the infallible word of God are the problem. Religions are flawed constructs and we get around that in the modern era by junking the parts of religion that are problematic. We either pretend they don't exist or acknowledge they do but belong to another era not today - those who insist that all of the religion is relevant to today ARE THE PROBLEM and that is not Islamophobic it is as relevant to Christianity and any other religion.
If you want to get into a theological discussion I could quote passages from the Bible and the Koran until well past polling day but yes there are problems in religion and anyone who is blind to that is the problem too. It is not racist to say there are problems in religions.
One of the best shootdowns of [in this case Christian] extreme interpretations of religion was on The West Wing when the Catholic President on election day tackles religious extremism with respect to homosexuality. If you have a couple of minutes watch this and tell me if it is Christianphobic or whatever the right word is? Saying the same thing about Islam is not Islamophobic.
Love the West Wing. Religion is not a problem, violent religious extremists are. That's not a difficult distinction to draw. If you don't draw that distinction, then yes you are Christeo/whatever-phobic.
And in the article that you chose to link to that is exactly what Johnson did. Johnson drew every bit the distinction that President Bartlett did in that clip.
Can someone tell me if you are old enough to remember, did it feel like the tories were going to win big in 1987 or 1983? Because right now it doesn't *feel* like it?
The first election I took an interest in was 1992 so I can't help. Interesting question though.
That's exactly right, he caved in to the EU and stuffed the DUP. He's also removed a number of One Nation Tories and convinced the electorate that Brexit will be finished very soon. None of which is particularly good (apart from the DUP bit) for us, but will probably be good for Boris - for a while.
I think selling the DUP down the river will be seen as positive by the majority of the electorate.
I know, right? If Arlene thinks she's going to hurt Boris by highlighting how he shafted her infuriating party, then she's not very good at political calculations at all...
Survation is probably exaggerating the Tory lead slightly in the same way that other pollsters are under-estimating it. Average lead is about 10-11%.
My understanding of house effects is that Survation are assumed to be overstating the Labour (& to a lesser extent LibDem) votes shares but not overstating the Tory one.
If you apply house effect adjustments to this poll, the Tory lead comes out at 15.8pts (which seems improbably big to me).
If you apply house effects to all the major pollsters, the Tory leads become:
These are for polls where the close date for data gathering is no later than the 4th December. Unless I've got my house effects column wrong of course.
Religion is a problem. I'm an atheist and I'm happy to argue that extreme beliefs in organised religion is a serious problem - not just Islam but Christianity and others too. Extremists who believe that their religion is the infallible word of God are the problem. Religions are flawed constructs and we get around that in the modern era by junking the parts of religion that are problematic. We either pretend they don't exist or acknowledge they do but belong to another era not today - those who insist that all of the religion is relevant to today ARE THE PROBLEM and that is not Islamophobic it is as relevant to Christianity and any other religion.
If you want to get into a theological discussion I could quote passages from the Bible and the Koran until well past polling day but yes there are problems in religion and anyone who is blind to that is the problem too. It is not racist to say there are problems in religions.
One of the best shootdowns of [in this case Christian] extreme interpretations of religion was on The West Wing when the Catholic President on election day tackles religious extremism with respect to homosexuality. If you have a couple of minutes watch this and tell me if it is Christianphobic or whatever the right word is? Saying the same thing about Islam is not Islamophobic.
Can someone tell me if you are old enough to remember, did it feel like the tories were going to win big in 1987 or 1983? Because right now it doesn't *feel* like it?
The first election I took an interest in was 1992 so I can't help. Interesting question though.
Can someone tell me if you are old enough to remember, did it feel like the tories were going to win big in 1987 or 1983? Because right now it doesn't *feel* like it?
The first election I took an interest in was 1992 so I can't help. Interesting question though.
My first was 2001 which was the first I voted in (I was not old enough to be interested though not old enough to vote in 1997 but that's the only British election I lived overseas for so can't really comment on that). This election "feels" to me like the first where the Tories will win big. 2017 felt like it until the manifesto launches but by election week it no longer felt like it.
I think memories of 2017 cloud our judgement of this year but this year "feels" different to 2017.
I don't see any evidence of institutional racism in the Conservative party. I think that it panders ot xenophobes and that it does not do close to enough to tackle racism among its membership, but I do not see procedures and processes that militate against members of certain minorities. This is why Labour is being investigated by the EHRC: there is evidence that such procedures and processes do exist with regard to Jews. One example: it is alleged that Orthodox Jews applying to join the party in Tottenham were required to agree to a home visit in advance of their application being approved. This only applied to Orthodox Jews. That is process and procedure (and it is horrifying). Do the Tories do this with Moslems? I do not think this has ever been suggested.
Spot-on, Southam. Or, to put it another way, are Muslim Tory MPs (such as my MP, Nus Ghani) being hounded out of the party in the way Labour Jewish MPs have been?
It really is completely absurd to claim any kind of equivalence between the two.
If the Tory Party is so clearly not Islamophobic, why would Johnson agree to an investigation on that specific issue and then immediately water it down? It would only be because he knows the results of it would not be good.
Because it may lose him votes. If Labour had a different leader he would have to have an investigation, but with Labour waste deep in racism he can ignore the issue. This goes for a number of policy areas.
Yes, but they have changed the rules as outlined by Herdson in a recent header thus making it difficult for any potential candidate who is not hard left to get onto the ballet.
Herdson pointed out that Cooper and Kendall wouldn`t have got onto the ballot in 2015 if the current rules were in place then.
Rebecca LB is looking pretty nailed on in my view. I had £50 on her at 28/1 ages ago but I`m not biased.
Last time the rules were pretty clear that Corbyn didn't need to be renominated by MPs, but certain elements in the party nearly prevented him from getting on the ballot and there had to be a court case.
RLB is my second biggest red. Jess Philips would be great for my book. I'm pretty confident she'll stand, she's previously said she's interested. As long as she doesn't start off by criticizing Momentum, I think she'd have a good chance.
The 2015 rules were that 15% of the parliamentary party needed to nominate a candidate. Corbyn got over that level, but only because a few non-Corbyn supporting MPs nominated him to "broaden the date". This was wrong. He should never really have become leader.
I meant in 2016 sorry for not being clear, when the rules said challengers needed to get X MPs supporting them, and some in Labour thought it would be clever to exclude the current leader from fighting against a leadership challenge.
In my limited experience of giving a fuck about elections, this feels different. Polls are stubbornly not moving; people, anecdatally both wanting Br*x*t done; and no one really believing Lab's big spaff will leave them untouched.
Religion is a problem. I'm an atheist and I'm happy to argue that extreme beliefs in organised religion is a serious problem - not just Islam but Christianity and others too. Extremists who believe that their religion is the infallible word of God are the problem. Religions are flawed constructs and we get around that in the modern era by junking the parts of religion that are problematic. We either pretend they don't exist or acknowledge they do but belong to another era not today - those who insist that all of the religion is relevant to today ARE THE PROBLEM and that is not Islamophobic it is as relevant to Christianity and any other religion.
If you want to get into a theological discussion I could quote passages from the Bible and the Koran until well past polling day but yes there are problems in religion and anyone who is blind to that is the problem too. It is not racist to say there are problems in religions.
One of the best shootdowns of [in this case Christian] extreme interpretations of religion was on The West Wing when the Catholic President on election day tackles religious extremism with respect to homosexuality. If you have a couple of minutes watch this and tell me if it is Christianphobic or whatever the right word is? Saying the same thing about Islam is not Islamophobic.
Love the West Wing. Religion is not a problem, violent religious extremists are. That's not a difficult distinction to draw. If you don't draw that distinction, then yes you are Christeo/whatever-phobic.
And in the article that you chose to link to that is exactly what Johnson did. Johnson drew every bit the distinction that President Bartlett did in that clip.
Sorry but I don't agree. Johnson is blaming the religion in that article.
Can someone tell me if you are old enough to remember, did it feel like the tories were going to win big in 1987 or 1983? Because right now it doesn't *feel* like it?
I'm old enough, I was a candidate in 1983. It felt like the Tory landslide that it was, delviered by the voters with conviction. Oddly I don't remember 1987 as clearly. Now, it feels like a comfortable Tory win, delivered very unenthusiastically.
I was the late Lord Wyn Roberts driver for the 1983 election and it really did feel it was going to be very good win. Wyn was going door to door round the council estates and was being mobbed with well wishers and his posters were going up everywhere
And I should say Wyn was the most wonderful person you could ever want to spend time with, God bless him
Religion is a problem. I'm an atheist and I'm happy to argue that extreme beliefs in organised religion is a serious problem - not just Islam but Christianity and others too. Extremists who believe that their religion is the infallible word of God are the problem. Religions are flawed constructs and we get around that in the modern era by junking the parts of religion that are problematic. We either pretend they don't exist or acknowledge they do but belong to another era not today - those who insist that all of the religion is relevant to today ARE THE PROBLEM and that is not Islamophobic it is as relevant to Christianity and any other religion.
If you want to get into a theological discussion I could quote passages from the Bible and the Koran until well past polling day but yes there are problems in religion and anyone who is blind to that is the problem too. It is not racist to say there are problems in religions.
One of the best shootdowns of [in this case Christian] extreme interpretations of religion was on The West Wing when the Catholic President on election day tackles religious extremism with respect to homosexuality. If you have a couple of minutes watch this and tell me if it is Christianphobic or whatever the right word is? Saying the same thing about Islam is not Islamophobic.
Love the West Wing. Religion is not a problem, violent religious extremists are. That's not a difficult distinction to draw. If you don't draw that distinction, then yes you are Christeo/whatever-phobic.
I think you've jumped the shark there. Atheism = racism. LOL. Plenty of people think religion *is* the problem. What century are you living in?
Comments
https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1203986477757222913
There is a case for looking intelligently at FoM and how it works within the EU. It is a case I have made myself in the past. But too often the argument about immigration in this country has not focused on the realities and the sorts of practical steps needed and the costs and benefits but has focused on individuals and groups in a way which suggests that they are freeloaders and not contributing. And it also ignores the fact that a very large part of the migration to this country comes from outside the EU and has always been under democratic control
People who have come here from other countries do feel that the atmosphere towards them has changed for the worse and is becoming more hostile. And that is in large part down to politicians like Boris and others. And I am afraid that after years of fuelling such an atmosphere in order to win a referendum and improve his career prospects, it is not enough to point to one interview and say “oh we like immigrants really - it’s just about democratic control”.
If he has not said the words suggested, good. As far as I am concerned anyone coming here to live and contribute makes this their home and is entitled to see it as “their” country. I don’t think the current Tories view this in the same way as me and it is one reason why they will not be getting my vote.
Just seems odd to me.
I’m sure her views will be explained away.
The problem is that any evidence of Islamophobia here is ignored.
Johnson said Muslim women look like bank robbers and letter boxes. That’s Islamophobic, whether he was protecting their right to wear these items of clothing or not. Imagine if Corbyn had argued against Jewish clothing, we know what the reaction would be.
I’m sure this candidate knows nothing about Islamophobia either:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-islamophobia-conservatives-inquiry-parvez-akhtar-a9221126.html?amp
Basically, I think that means the real “full fat” no deal can’t now happen.
Corbyn should resign straight after the election. I fully support the investigation. But the Tory Party should have one too, as the Muslim community has persistently called for.
At what point does "no overall majority" (currently 5.3) start to look attractive?
I wonder what Rory would think..
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1203975930936483841
The Torys are clearly closer to the centre than Labour.
Or do you accept and understand that there are over a billion Muslims who don't wear it? And that it isn't Islam?
Bolton NE: outer GM; more Lancashire than Mancunian in character. Nearly 60% leave. Mix of working class and comfortable urban fringe middle class. BUT - quite a high Muslim vote.
Bury North: in 2017 the Lib Dem candidate urged everyone to vote Labour. I don't know how much that impacted things, but can't have helped the Tory cause. Not as Leavey as Bolton NE but similar mix of w/c and comfortable urban fringe middle class. Probably a few more Guardians sold here in places like Ramsbottom. Also a Muslim vote, but smaller than Bury NE, I think.
Bury South - surprisingly slightly more Brexity than Bury North, but still under 55%. Younger and more urban in character - Prestwich is very much the fashionable location for young urbanites in north GM, which doesn't stand in the Tories' favour. BUT heavily Jewish (I think it's in the top 5 most Jewish seats in the country).
After that, it's a bit of a struggle, because you get to seats which haven't been blue for a long, long time, if at all. My favourite is Stalybridge and Hyde, which is nearly 60% leave, very WWC, outer fringes of GM: there are some pleasant bits to it but it's not the kind of place that brims with recent graduates. Leigh has been touted (63% leave) but this is ex-mining territory and despite demographic changes here in recent years still seems to me too big a hill to climb. Worsley and Eccles South has been an outside chance for many years because Worsley is pretty middle class, but that sort of thing is no longer in the Tories favour and it is largely within the M60. Heywood and Middleton also seems too big a stretch - it may be that I am too familiar with it and so I am viewing it through the lens of how people used to vote two decades ago, but I wouldn't fancy the Tories here either. Oldham East and Saddleworth contains some Tory votes, but doesn't feel like the sort of seat to swing blue this election - too young, too Muslim.
Tories are very vulnerable to the Lib Dems in Cheadle and Hazel Grove. HG was always the LD's better bet but the nature of Tory votes has changed, and HG now looks the Tories better chance. Their saving grace in both these seats might be that the age profile here is a fair bit older than the GM average. I'd say HG hold, Cheadle lose to LDs.
I am interested to see what happens in Blackley and Broughton. I don't for a minute think Labour are going to lose this, but it is more Brexity than any of the other Manchester (City) seats, and it is also the second most Jewish seat in GM. I'd look for a much bigger swing against Labour than would be expected of a city seat.
That's a good manifesto for PR, if ever I heard one. If Bollocks to Brexit is OK, maybe that's the next political slogan.
But how do we get it?
1974 - failed
1997 - failed
2010 - failed.
Two Tory rejections of it, one Labour. An all-party stitch up.
If you're saying the religion is the problem, then it's clear you are Islamophobic.
If you think 1), then McDonnell at 20/1 may be excellent value (check terms of the bet).
My money is on 2), so Corbyn leaving date "April - June 2020" at 8 with BF looks great value to me.
For the record, I think the Tories should have had an investigation some time ago - imo their evidenced-so-far problems are a pinprick compared to Lab antisemitism.
I am supportive of Starmer being senior or the leader. My only concern with him is the appeal to the North. But perhaps it won’t matter after things haven’t got better for the North after Johnson fucks them over.
I want a return to expert evidence based policy, behavioural insight group, etc, not this shit.
mis-hear that, 50 cent squad
But be wary about assuming that the Muslim Council of Britain represents all Muslims. It does not. It is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and has some pretty extremist views of its own and an agenda that is far from liberal. The Tories absolutely need to bear down on anti-Muslim prejudice and anti-semitism in their own party but they absolutely should not be taking advice from the MCB.
And as a result, the whole thing is a waste of time.
When I was knocking up once for a by-election it was a very very hot and sticky evening, it turned out to be the hottest day of that year, I found that I couldn't get people who said that they would support us out because it was so uncomfortably humid.
This time it's going to be cold as well as wet and the parties won't be able to recruit as many knocker-upers as they might have done.
In our first hundred days we will start the process of bringing water and energy into public ownership. We’ll set up boards to run these utilities made up of who, the customer, and you, the worker, as well as representatives from local councils, metro mayors and others.
We’ll make sure decisions are taken locally by those who understand the services – those who use them and deliver them.
Meetings will be public and streamed online, with new transparency regulations set higher than ever before, so you can see if your road is being dug up, why, and for how long. And we’ll create new people’s assemblies to give everyone the option of participating in how their utilities are run.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/dec/09/general-election-labour-sets-out-plan-for-first-100-days-in-office-live-news
I can't say I've ever felt a burning desire to participate in how utilities are run, but I guess that sort of thing excites some voters.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/
Agree with your last two sentences.
Btw I think your tip on Corbyn going in April - June is a good shout.
There will be very little trust on the left about shenanigans to try and keep candidates off the ballot after the attempts to exclude Corbyn from his own leadership challenge.
It always raises my liberal hackles when people say things like "the muslim community". Corbyn can hardly utter a sentence without "community" being in it. Where are these communities? Where is the individual in all this?
As a result, you end up with most of these things stuffed full of political people with an agenda, just like QT audiences.
None of which is particularly good (apart from the DUP bit) for us, but will probably be good for Boris - for a while.
But I agree with you on the more general point - and it isn’t only that organisation calling for an investigation, many others are too. I only used them as an example.
It's quite simple how they work. Imagine a court case. The case for the prosecution is put by an expert barrister. The jury listen and become 'informed' and directed to make the 'correct' decision. There is no barrister for the defence. Any jurors who having listened to the prosecution may ask questions in which they will be expertly told that there is no case for other positions.
Utter utter scam.
It would be better to just have it owned by government, make them pay their taxes, and have some kind of public consultation for improvements every year or two.
(Cough)
Herdson pointed out that Cooper and Kendall wouldn`t have got onto the ballot in 2015 if the current rules were in place then.
Rebecca LB is looking pretty nailed on in my view. I had £50 on her at 28/1 ages ago but I`m not biased.
Religion is a problem. I'm an atheist and I'm happy to argue that extreme beliefs in organised religion is a serious problem - not just Islam but Christianity and others too. Extremists who believe that their religion is the infallible word of God are the problem. Religions are flawed constructs and we get around that in the modern era by junking the parts of religion that are problematic. We either pretend they don't exist or acknowledge they do but belong to another era not today - those who insist that all of the religion is relevant to today ARE THE PROBLEM and that is not Islamophobic it is as relevant to Christianity and any other religion.
If you want to get into a theological discussion I could quote passages from the Bible and the Koran until well past polling day but yes there are problems in religion and anyone who is blind to that is the problem too. It is not racist to say there are problems in religions.
One of the best shootdowns of [in this case Christian] extreme interpretations of religion was on The West Wing when the Catholic President on election day tackles religious extremism with respect to homosexuality. If you have a couple of minutes watch this and tell me if it is Christianphobic or whatever the right word is? Saying the same thing about Islam is not Islamophobic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM
RLB is my second biggest red. Jess Philips would be great for my book. I'm pretty confident she'll stand, she's previously said she's interested. As long as she doesn't start off by criticizing Momentum, I think she'd have a good chance.
https://capx.co/labours-tax-raid-on-the-self-employed/
That's not a difficult distinction to draw. If you don't draw that distinction, then yes you are Christeo/whatever-phobic.
To equate it with a race is racist.
If you apply house effect adjustments to this poll, the Tory lead comes out at 15.8pts (which seems improbably big to me).
If you apply house effects to all the major pollsters, the Tory leads become:
Survation - 15.8
Deltapoll - 11.7
BMG - 9
YouGov - 7.4
Opinium - 15.7
Panelbase - 11.8
ComRes - 10.7
Ipsos - 12.7
These are for polls where the close date for data gathering is no later than the 4th December. Unless I've got my house effects column wrong of course.
WillS.
I think memories of 2017 cloud our judgement of this year but this year "feels" different to 2017.
It really is completely absurd to claim any kind of equivalence between the two.
This feels different.
Fortune, hostage, much?
McDonnell's face expresses hope, worry and shock simultaneously in this photo. I wonder if that's what his own odd polling information tells him.
And I should say Wyn was the most wonderful person you could ever want to spend time with, God bless him