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.
Here is the quote in isolation, about an article on radical islamism.
"To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim."
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.
To equate it with a race is racist.
"do look like ridiculous" Were you going to say 'letterboxes'?
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?
I think you've completely misunderstood me. I don't think atheism is racism. I am an atheist myself. I do think blaming an entire religion for the actions of a tiny minority is being prejudiced against that religion.
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.
Yes in 1983
And now? Does it feel like it?
I was very involved on the ground in 1983 and not at all today so I cannot compare
However, it does feel as if Boris will get a majority but I cannot predict the number of seats he will win in his majority if his does win
v) The British public, for believing Boris Johnson's impossible claims. As the film Chernobyl tells us, "Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid." Boris's debt will be paid in spades during his term in office.
Not so sure it will. They will turn (even more) to populist fearmongering. The enemies within...
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.
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.
This feels different.
Fortune, hostage, much?
How many words has Boris given to the English language? Boris bus, Boris bike, spaff... any more?
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.
How are you defining moderate Islam here? I don't see many mosques that embrace gender equality or accept gay people.
One thing I find depressing is reading the tweets of 'journalists' - almost to a wo(man) these days they are highly partisan in thier own tweets and in those they retweet. Result I don't think you can believe a word they say. Even worse in the case of those like Owen Jones who is really a full-time activist andyet apparently thinks he is a journalist. Oh for the days when we got the news deadpan at 6pm and 9pm and we were allowed to make our own judgements.
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?
In '83 I was in the middle of my very brief flirtation with politics as a very Young Conservative. Campaigned in Plymouth Devonport (as was) for a young candidate trying to unseat David Owen by the name of Anne Widdecombe*.
That felt like a big win was incoming at the time but I was too young to impartially judge (I probably still am).
By 1987 I was at university and too drunk to notice what was happening.
It may be that the reason it doesn't feel big now in 2019 is that we're all still nursing burns from the 2017 forecasts. But I can't see a majority on the scale of '83.
Corbyn's a worse leader than Foot was but a better campaigner.
WillS
* And she's back there standing again, with the same result probably.
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.
I just about remember 1992 and, at least where I was, it was more 'LOLabour' stuff. But we're looking at a 25 % CON majority in where I lived then, so there we are.
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.
In the same way as Bartlett agrees that scripture says what the bigot says it says and then quotes other scripture. He is blaming religious extremism.
He doesn't suggest that Islam needs to be eliminated or anything, he says we need to ask (not force) preachers to preach British values - just as we ask (not force) Christian clerics to do the same.
It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken, and by way of a first gesture the entire Muslim clergy might announce, loud and clear, for the benefit of all Bradford-born chipshop boys, that there is no eternal blessedness for the suicide bombers, there are no 72 virgins, and that the whole thing is a con and a fraud upon impressionable minds. That might be a first step towards what could be called the re-Britannification of Britain.
How is that passage I highlight wrong? It is entirely appropriate in my eyes just as it is appropriate in my eyes for Bartlett to suggest Christians look past scripture and not hate gays.
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.
It is only their country when they are granted citizenship, you are a guest and will remain so until then.
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.
Is there any real evidence that the weather depresses turnout?
It seems intuitive, I grant you - but turnout is a function of so many dynamic factors, that I wonder if weather alone has any real discernible and discrete effect.
Notwithstanding the extremes of 20 foot snowdrifts, of course; but that is not what is forecast.
One thing I find depressing is reading the tweets of 'journalists' - almost to a wo(man) these days they are highly partisan in thier own tweets and in those they retweet. Result I don't think you can believe a word they say. Even worse in the case of those like Owen Jones who is really a full-time activist andyet apparently thinks he is a journalist. Oh for the days when we got the news deadpan at 6pm and 9pm and we were allowed to make our own judgements.
Yes, this is very true. I think its when he starts arguing that he's a journalist and not an activist is when my eyes roll.
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?
I think you've completely misunderstood me. I don't think atheism is racism. I am an atheist myself. I do think blaming an entire religion for the actions of a tiny minority is being prejudiced against that religion.
In that article, Boris is blaming religious leaders for not dissociating themselves from said extremists. Which seems a reasonable point.
I don't know if Boris has genuine ambitions to win any of the Tyne and Wear seats or if he's just visiting as part of a broader attempt to win round Northern working class voters. But given the smallest majority is 10k in Sunderland Central it seems bizarre that the government who have been in power for almost 10 years are even considering winning here is a possibility.
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.
I wonder if the Tories are managing to get that message across to White Van Man? There are a lot of micro businesses in marginals in the Midlands which would be really clobbered by that dividend tax hike.
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.
I wonder if the Tories are managing to get that message across to White Van Man? There are a lot of micro businesses in marginals in the Midlands which would be really clobbered by that dividend tax hike.
I don't know if Boris has genuine ambitions to win any of the Tyne and Wear seats or if he's just visiting as part of a broader attempt to win round Northern working class voters. But given the smallest majority is 10k in Sunderland Central it seems bizarre that the government who have been in power for almost 10 years are even considering winning here is a possibility.
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.
Is there any real evidence that the weather depresses turnout?
It seems intuitive, I grant you - but turnout is a function of so many dynamic factors, that I wonder if weather alone has any real discernible and discrete effect.
Notwithstanding the extremes of 20 foot snowdrifts, of course; but that is not what is forecast.
My feelings exactly. We live in a modern society with postal voting, proxy voting, and with most people living within 1 mile of their polling station. Normal December weather shouldn't have a massive effect.
Have we had any more info on actual size of electorate in each seat? We have had all the boosting of big vote registration applications, but I have only seen one tweet about the actual electorate and that was 4-5 seats and basically it wasn't up in all but 1.
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.
How are you defining moderate Islam here? I don't see many mosques that embrace gender equality or accept gay people.
I suppose I'm thinking about the Muslims I knew when I worked in London, of the sort that gave up red wine for Ramadan. But I did say "relatively", most religions have conservative views about gender and sexuality.
Mr. Wiggs, not sure I agree. If Corbyn hadn't been Labour leader, Remain might well have won (of course, you can say that about several factors).
Not so sure - lots of things in the referendum campaign might have been different. I still think Leave would have won. Remain didn't lose for the sake of a bit of effort from Corbyn - their case was strongly made.
Equally, had he not have been leader May may have got her majority without a late Corbyn surge. Or indeed she may not have even called the election had she been facing someone more competent.
In terms of 'feeling' it feels like there is suspension of disbelief and a feeling 2017 will repeat which mean, I think, that people are missing the obvious. That Brexit and Boris are going to massacre Corbyn in the north and Midlands. Nothing in the polling suggests it will be remotely close. Nor in the mood music or anecdata
Lady humbugger has just opened an envelope bearing the statement "Important NHS Information Enclosed", just of the type you might receive if you were expecting news of a test result or an appointment.
Not so, it turns out to be a letter from the Labour Party saying that the NHS is not safe from Boris and Trump etc etc. The letter is all in NHS blue so to all the world it looks like a letter from the NHS.
To say she's not very impressed would be an understatement.
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?
To me, this election has always felt like 1987 - Tories terrified despite pretty solid poll leads, Labour and the Libs wasting their capital on issues with little traction. Of course there are differences - the economy was doing better then, Labour were more electable and the Common Market was not really an issue. But just from the psephological point of view, I think that is the election that most resembles this one.
Maybe I'll wake up on Friday eating those words though...
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
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.
My memory of 1987 was a late-election Tory mega-wobble. A light Thatcherite in those days, I remember being as obsessive checking my staff had all registered and, if travelling, had postal votes or proxies set up as I am with my neighbours today.
I can remember for several days around roughly Polling Day minus 7, it really looked as if Maggie was stumbling. But I now haven't got the foggiest what the fuss was all about.
But remember one thing: in 1987 Maggie got a huge majority - but still lost seats, and was fighting a proper Social Democrat. This time Johnson needs to gain seats - and he's fighting a Trot.
I don't know if Boris has genuine ambitions to win any of the Tyne and Wear seats or if he's just visiting as part of a broader attempt to win round Northern working class voters. But given the smallest majority is 10k in Sunderland Central it seems bizarre that the government who have been in power for almost 10 years are even considering winning here is a possibility.
The thing that gives Boris a chance is not only that he's running against Corbyn, but also against Major and Blair and (less directly) Cameron. People call Boris a buffoon, but he's engineered a way to be the change candidate while in the tenth year of Conservative Government, which is no minor feat.
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.
In the same way as Bartlett agrees that scripture says what the bigot says it says and then quotes other scripture. He is blaming religious extremism.
He doesn't suggest that Islam needs to be eliminated or anything, he says we need to ask (not force) preachers to preach British values - just as we ask (not force) Christian clerics to do the same.
It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken, and by way of a first gesture the entire Muslim clergy might announce, loud and clear, for the benefit of all Bradford-born chipshop boys, that there is no eternal blessedness for the suicide bombers, there are no 72 virgins, and that the whole thing is a con and a fraud upon impressionable minds. That might be a first step towards what could be called the re-Britannification of Britain.
How is that passage I highlight wrong? It is entirely appropriate in my eyes just as it is appropriate in my eyes for Bartlett to suggest Christians look past scripture and not hate gays.
That was an excellent article by Boris. Hope those that keep comparing him to Trump may reflect, while reading it, that Trump could never have composed something remotely like this. Can Trump read and write?
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.
I just about remember 1992 and, at least where I was, it was more 'LOLabour' stuff. But we're looking at a 25 % CON majority in where I lived then, so there we are.
I can remember the 1979 election when Thatcher first came to power. People kept saying: "It's going to be close" but then Thatcher won a healthy 43 majority. To me it seems rather like 1979 but then I haven't got the contacts in the parties I used to have.
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
You would have thought it would have come Sat / Sun.
I don't know if Boris has genuine ambitions to win any of the Tyne and Wear seats or if he's just visiting as part of a broader attempt to win round Northern working class voters. But given the smallest majority is 10k in Sunderland Central it seems bizarre that the government who have been in power for almost 10 years are even considering winning here is a possibility.
He thinks Darlo and Bish are in the bag, and is now just taking the piss?
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.
With great respect that’s a bit trite. The question to be asked is how can a credal culture fit happily within a democratic society. In the Christian West that question has been resolved by making religion take second place to the secular ie laws are determined by democratic votes and on the basis of principles which do not specifically refer to the tenets of any religion. In credal cultures this does not happen and this causes tensions between the two, as has been seen in pretty much every country with a significant Muslim minority, which has not tried to answer this question. Issues around violence and the burqa are examples of this tension but they are not the limits of it.
The LGBT row in Birmingham schools is another example. The problems are not limited to the use of violence and it is not Islamophobic to point this out, even though some who do not want us to think hard about such issues will claim that it is.
I don't know if Boris has genuine ambitions to win any of the Tyne and Wear seats or if he's just visiting as part of a broader attempt to win round Northern working class voters. But given the smallest majority is 10k in Sunderland Central it seems bizarre that the government who have been in power for almost 10 years are even considering winning here is a possibility.
Maybe their own internal polling justifies it
Oh I don't doubt that if the wind is blowing the right way then Tynemouth in particular is an outside chance but it speaks volumes of the post referendum realignment, the popularity of Boris outside the Tory south and just how awful Corbyn is to the majority who are not full time activists.
There is a lot to be said for the Tories reinventing themselves every election and getting a new leader, clearly the usual anti Tory attack lines aren't working as well because Boris is an insurgent rather than an arbiter of austerity.
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
One would hope that pledging an additional £60 Billion AFTER their supposedly fully-costed manifesto would be quite enough.
Off topic - can anyone recommend decent, non-partisan British politics podcasts (besides the excellent Kieran Pedley/Leo Barasi ones)? I have a long flight on Thursday.
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
You would have thought it would have come Sat / Sun.
It would look soooooo desperate now... but of course it's still possible.
On the other hand, such a public acknowledgement that they're about to be creamed could break the back of their campaign entirely.
I don't know if Boris has genuine ambitions to win any of the Tyne and Wear seats or if he's just visiting as part of a broader attempt to win round Northern working class voters. But given the smallest majority is 10k in Sunderland Central it seems bizarre that the government who have been in power for almost 10 years are even considering winning here is a possibility.
He thinks Darlo and Bish are in the bag, and is now just taking the piss?
I suspect Bish is very much in the bag, tiny majority and all that. A lot of us would love a Pidcock moment too. I'd still be chuffed with a majority of 16 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.
I wonder if the Tories are managing to get that message across to White Van Man? There are a lot of micro businesses in marginals in the Midlands which would be really clobbered by that dividend tax hike.
As far as I can tell, it's been a key component of the social media messaging. Which is important, as a lot of those types of businesses rely heavily on social media to connect to customers.
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.
To equate it with a race is racist.
"do look like ridiculous" Were you going to say 'letterboxes'?
No. That wouldn't be my personal language and I wouldn't copy someone else's for the sake of it, though it is apt. Could you answer some questions for me?
Do you think the niqab is required by Islam? Do you accept that there's over a billion Muslims worldwide who don't wear it? Do you think it is misogynistic? Do you think misogyny is wrong? Do you think criticising misogyny is appropriate?
My answers for what its worth are no, yes, yes, yes and yes.
but Guido is informed mental health in the Corbyn camp is truly at rock bottom now – with numerous bouts of depression and even one loyalist being sectioned over the stress of the flagging election campaign.
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.
This feels different.
Fortune, hostage, much?
Honestly? It “feels” like 2005 to me. But with a more crap opposition.
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
You would have thought it would have come Sat / Sun.
It would look soooooo desperate now... but of course it's still possible.
On the other hand, such a public acknowledgement that they're about to be creamed could break the back of their campaign entirely.
I have to say I have found the Labour advent calendar campaign choices slightly confusing. If you are going radical, why not go really populist, with legalize drugs, cancel student debt, overhaul tv sports rights. Planting 2bn trees ain't going to shift a vote.
I don't know if Boris has genuine ambitions to win any of the Tyne and Wear seats or if he's just visiting as part of a broader attempt to win round Northern working class voters. But given the smallest majority is 10k in Sunderland Central it seems bizarre that the government who have been in power for almost 10 years are even considering winning here is a possibility.
Very good point made on here this morning or last night that the leaders are probably being sent to seats neighbouring the key targets - rather than to the targets themselves - in order not to use up £££ spend and the ground game in those targets. So his being in Sunderland is really to get the message across in some of the surrounding North East seats.
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.
With great respect that’s a bit trite. The question to be asked is how can a credal culture fit happily within a democratic society. In the Christian West that question has been resolved by making religion take second place to the secular ie laws are determined by democratic votes and on the basis of principles which do not specifically refer to the tenets of any religion. In credal cultures this does not happen and this causes tensions between the two, as has been seen in pretty much every country with a significant Muslim minority, which has not tried to answer this question. Issues around violence and the burqa are examples of this tension but they are not the limits of it.
The LGBT row in Birmingham schools is another example. The problems are not limited to the use of violence and it is not Islamophobic to point this out, even though some who do not want us to think hard about such issues will claim that it is.
Precisely. Secular equality is more important to me than medieval sectarian mythologies.
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.
It is only their country when they are granted citizenship, you are a guest and will remain so until then.
Oh really, just eff off. My father who fought for this country and lived here for 40 years was not a “guest”. Nor was my mother who lived here for 52 years. “Guests” indeed.
Is McDonnell planning to nationalise all of the water and energy companies in the UK within his first 100 days, by "swapping shares for government bonds (that don't count as borrowing)"?
Just as a random example, being the first I happened to click on from here, Northumbrian Water appears to be owned by CK Hutchison Holdings and the Li Ka Shing Foundation, a Cayman Islands–registered multinational conglomerate headquartered in Hong Kong and a Hong Kong-based charitable organization respectively.
How many government bonds (which still definitely aren't borrowing) is he planning to swap their shares for, and what interest will they pay? Sounds like a particularly lousy deal for these HK institutions. Will the owners just have to acquiesce? Won't they have some recourse to the law somewhere?
Off topic - can anyone recommend decent, non-partisan British politics podcasts (besides the excellent Kieran Pedley/Leo Barasi ones)? I have a long flight on Thursday.
Non partisan is the diifficult bit. "Westminster Hour", "Pienaar`s Politics", "Political Thinking", "Electioncast", "FT Politics", "Cross Question", "Commons People", "All Out Politics".
Have we had any more info on actual size of electorate in each seat? We have had all the boosting of big vote registration applications, but I have only seen one tweet about the actual electorate and that was 4-5 seats and basically it wasn't up in all but 1.
I'm also trying to get hold of the latest electorate data.
Ha ha - Roger A-S is such a flirt! Always enjoy the build up to these. The fact that the end result is as good as no news at all is neither here nor there.
Have we had any more info on actual size of electorate in each seat? We have had all the boosting of big vote registration applications, but I have only seen one tweet about the actual electorate and that was 4-5 seats and basically it wasn't up in all but 1.
I'm also trying to get hold of the latest electorate data.
Andy_JS: what`s your current prediction on the number of SNP seats? I`m tempted to go Under 44.5 @ 5/6.
Im expecting good things for the Cons in the Wales poll. I believe the last poll was the first after Alun Cairns resigned and the field dates were a 4 day period beginning with the Labour manifesto launch when the Yougov MRP and most polls picked up a significant Lab bounce. That bounce may have faded and we could see Lab & Con almost neck and neck...
Is McDonnell planning to nationalise all of the water and energy companies in the UK within his first 100 days, by "swapping shares for government bonds (that don't count as borrowing)"?
Just as a random example, being the first I happened to click on from here, Northumbrian Water appears to be owned by CK Hutchison Holdings and the Li Ka Shing Foundation, a Cayman Islands–registered multinational conglomerate headquartered in Hong Kong and a Hong Kong-based charitable organization respectively.
How many government bonds (which still definitely aren't borrowing) is he planning to swap their shares for, and what interest will they pay? Sounds like a particularly lousy deal for these HK institutions. Will the owners just have to acquiesce? Won't they have some recourse to the law somewhere?
The Labour plan is for parliament to set the price....
Have we had any more info on actual size of electorate in each seat? We have had all the boosting of big vote registration applications, but I have only seen one tweet about the actual electorate and that was 4-5 seats and basically it wasn't up in all but 1.
I'm also trying to get hold of the latest electorate data.
I suspect it’s held council by council, which may make that a pain. Though, the BES team might have arrangements to be sent it?
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
You would have thought it would have come Sat / Sun.
It would look soooooo desperate now... but of course it's still possible.
On the other hand, such a public acknowledgement that they're about to be creamed could break the back of their campaign entirely.
I have to say I have found the Labour advent calendar campaign choices slightly confusing. If you are going radical, why not go really populist, with legalize drugs, cancel student debt, overhaul tv sports rights. Planting 2bn trees ain't going to shift a vote.
Strange, isn't it? I feel like I could have written a better manifesto for them, despite not wanting 99% of the things they want.
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.
How are you defining moderate Islam here? I don't see many mosques that embrace gender equality or accept gay people.
I suppose I'm thinking about the Muslims I knew when I worked in London, of the sort that gave up red wine for Ramadan. But I did say "relatively", most religions have conservative views about gender and sexuality.
And to add... the minimum requirement for being a Muslim is quite low. To utter the shahada, pray five times a day, give to charity, fast during Ramadan and (if you are able) to go on the Hajj. You don't even have to go to the Mosque.
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
Although the Liberals ran him fairly close in Conwy IIRC.
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
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.
It is only their country when they are granted citizenship, you are a guest and will remain so until then.
Oh really, just eff off. My father who fought for this country and lived here for 40 years was not a “guest”. Nor was my mother who lived here for 52 years. “Guests” indeed.
For some reason this reminds me of Ralph Miliband being classed as "the man who hated Britain" and "an enemy alien" by the Mail, even though he had already served in the Navy by the time the war ended.
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.
With great respect that’s a bit trite. The question to be asked is how can a credal culture fit happily within a democratic society. In the Christian West that question has been resolved by making religion take second place to the secular ie laws are determined by democratic votes and on the basis of principles which do not specifically refer to the tenets of any religion. In credal cultures this does not happen and this causes tensions between the two, as has been seen in pretty much every country with a significant Muslim minority, which has not tried to answer this question. Issues around violence and the burqa are examples of this tension but they are not the limits of it.
The LGBT row in Birmingham schools is another example. The problems are not limited to the use of violence and it is not Islamophobic to point this out, even though some who do not want us to think hard about such issues will claim that it is.
Precisely. Secular equality is more important to me than medieval sectarian mythologies.
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
You would have thought it would have come Sat / Sun.
It would look soooooo desperate now... but of course it's still possible.
On the other hand, such a public acknowledgement that they're about to be creamed could break the back of their campaign entirely.
I have to say I have found the Labour advent calendar campaign choices slightly confusing. If you are going radical, why not go really populist, with legalize drugs, cancel student debt, overhaul tv sports rights. Planting 2bn trees ain't going to shift a vote.
Strange, isn't it? I feel like I could have written a better manifesto for them, despite not wanting 99% of the things they want.
I’ve wondered whether stuff like legalisation of drugs was vetoed by those wanting to hold the more socially conservative north. They just then forgot to put something appealing in instead.
It is pretty scary that academics are willing to write the following which is provably false...
If we approach the polls not as an accurate snapshot, but as a blurry, unfocused photograph, providing us with an idea of broad trends rather than a crystal clear picture, the gap between Labour and the Tories has been narrowing as the campaign goes on, which according to some has increased the possibility of a hung parliament.
Ooh, finally had my token leaflet from the Tories. Photos of candidate with a 'can we get this photo over with and move on' expression, as is entirely understandable for a Tory in Wythenshawe. Lots of photos of Boris looking enthusiastic and pointing at things. He does this sort of thing much better than his predecessor, who looked strained and awkward in all circumstances. NHS, NHS, NHS. Lots of promises to spend money. This follows two leaflets from Mike Kane, the Labour MP, which were also NHS, NHS, NHS. But no photos of Jeremy Corbyn looking enthusiastic or pointing at things. Nothing from the Lib Dems or the other rag tag and bobtails yet. Really, the candidates here are just going through the motions.
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.
To equate it with a race is racist.
"do look like ridiculous" Were you going to say 'letterboxes'?
No. That wouldn't be my personal language and I wouldn't copy someone else's for the sake of it, though it is apt. Could you answer some questions for me?
Do you think the niqab is required by Islam? Do you accept that there's over a billion Muslims worldwide who don't wear it? Do you think it is misogynistic? Do you think misogyny is wrong? Do you think criticising misogyny is appropriate?
My answers for what its worth are no, yes, yes, yes and yes.
I would add that some Muslim countries have banned its wear, at least in some circumstances (which I can't remember without going to look it up)
A funny thing about Trump is that he regularly recommends books on Twitter that have just been published, usually on such subjects as how great Trump is, or how the numerous investigations into his actions are shams. I'm 99% certain that Trump has not read a word of those books.
It is only their country when they are granted citizenship, you are a guest and will remain so until then.
Oh really, just eff off. My father who fought for this country and lived here for 40 years was not a “guest”. Nor was my mother who lived here for 52 years. “Guests” indeed.
Did they never claim citizenship? If not, why not if you don't mind me asking?
I lived overseas for 7 years. I always felt like a guest of the country I was in.
Speaking personally I welcome to this country anyone who wants to come here, whether it be temporarily as a guest like I was overseas, or permanently in which case I think they should easily be able to attain citizenship.
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.
To equate it with a race is racist.
"do look like ridiculous" Were you going to say 'letterboxes'?
No. That wouldn't be my personal language and I wouldn't copy someone else's for the sake of it, though it is apt. Could you answer some questions for me?
Do you think the niqab is required by Islam? Do you accept that there's over a billion Muslims worldwide who don't wear it? Do you think it is misogynistic? Do you think misogyny is wrong? Do you think criticising misogyny is appropriate?
My answers for what its worth are no, yes, yes, yes and yes.
I would add that some Muslim countries have banned its wear, at least in some circumstances (which I can't remember without going to look it up)
So - are they islamophobic?
Indeed I believe Ataturk banned it nearly a century ago. Funny that!
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
You would have thought it would have come Sat / Sun.
It would look soooooo desperate now... but of course it's still possible.
On the other hand, such a public acknowledgement that they're about to be creamed could break the back of their campaign entirely.
I have to say I have found the Labour advent calendar campaign choices slightly confusing. If you are going radical, why not go really populist, with legalize drugs, cancel student debt, overhaul tv sports rights. Planting 2bn trees ain't going to shift a vote.
Strange, isn't it? I feel like I could have written a better manifesto for them, despite not wanting 99% of the things they want.
I’ve wondered whether stuff like legalisation of drugs was vetoed by those wanting to hold the more socially conservative north. They just then forgot to put something appealing in instead.
Overhauling tv sports rights I am sure would have been popular in the North and cost the government nothing. Now it would screw the sports themselves, but bugger that they are all multi-millionaires anyway, right?
I suppose I'm thinking about the Muslims I knew when I worked in London, of the sort that gave up red wine for Ramadan. But I did say "relatively", most religions have conservative views about gender and sexuality.
And to add... the minimum requirement for being a Muslim is quite low. To utter the shahada, pray five times a day, give to charity, fast during Ramadan and (if you are able) to go on the Hajj. You don't even have to go to the Mosque.
I suspect it's the praying five times a day that's the killer. You try scheduling that when you've got a day of wall-to-wall meetings and a train to catch in the evening.
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
You would have thought it would have come Sat / Sun.
It would look soooooo desperate now... but of course it's still possible.
On the other hand, such a public acknowledgement that they're about to be creamed could break the back of their campaign entirely.
I have to say I have found the Labour advent calendar campaign choices slightly confusing. If you are going radical, why not go really populist, with legalize drugs, cancel student debt, overhaul tv sports rights. Planting 2bn trees ain't going to shift a vote.
Strange, isn't it? I feel like I could have written a better manifesto for them, despite not wanting 99% of the things they want.
I’ve wondered whether stuff like legalisation of drugs was vetoed by those wanting to hold the more socially conservative north. They just then forgot to put something appealing in instead.
Overhauling tv sports rights I am sure would have been popular in the North and cost the government nothing. Now it would screw the sports themselves, but bugger that they are all multi-millionaires anyway, right?
Risks the players/managers coming out against you?
I don't know if Boris has genuine ambitions to win any of the Tyne and Wear seats or if he's just visiting as part of a broader attempt to win round Northern working class voters. But given the smallest majority is 10k in Sunderland Central it seems bizarre that the government who have been in power for almost 10 years are even considering winning here is a possibility.
Boris started the morning in key target Grimsby, Sunderland is just the icing on the cake and iconic as the key first seat to declare and the first indication of Leave's 2016 win
Im expecting good things for the Cons in the Wales poll. I believe the last poll was the first after Alun Cairns resigned and the field dates were a 4 day period beginning with the Labour manifesto launch when the Yougov MRP and most polls picked up a significant Lab bounce. That bounce may have faded and we could see Lab & Con almost neck and neck...
Brexit party was also on 8% then. Wonder if it has gone to labour or tories now?
With great respect that’s a bit trite. The question to be asked is how can a credal culture fit happily within a democratic society. In the Christian West that question has been resolved by making religion take second place to the secular ie laws are determined by democratic votes and on the basis of principles which do not specifically refer to the tenets of any religion. In credal cultures this does not happen and this causes tensions between the two, as has been seen in pretty much every country with a significant Muslim minority, which has not tried to answer this question. Issues around violence and the burqa are examples of this tension but they are not the limits of it.
The LGBT row in Birmingham schools is another example. The problems are not limited to the use of violence and it is not Islamophobic to point this out, even though some who do not want us to think hard about such issues will claim that it is.
Precisely. Secular equality is more important to me than medieval sectarian mythologies.
Is McDonnell planning to nationalise all of the water and energy companies in the UK within his first 100 days, by "swapping shares for government bonds (that don't count as borrowing)"?
Just as a random example, being the first I happened to click on from here, Northumbrian Water appears to be owned by CK Hutchison Holdings and the Li Ka Shing Foundation, a Cayman Islands–registered multinational conglomerate headquartered in Hong Kong and a Hong Kong-based charitable organization respectively.
How many government bonds (which still definitely aren't borrowing) is he planning to swap their shares for, and what interest will they pay? Sounds like a particularly lousy deal for these HK institutions. Will the owners just have to acquiesce? Won't they have some recourse to the law somewhere?
The Labour plan is for parliament to set the price....
Yeah right - bye bye investment into UK
Several months ago I reduced my exposure to UK shares in my pension scheme precisely because of this kind of Soviet confiscatory threat.
Parliament will set the price, you get a govt bond in exchange. At what coupon, at what maturity, who the hell this side of sanity is going to buy them, issued as they would be by a govt setting the price? Hardly going to compete with Swiss Francs is it in the international markets. Is he going to go the full hog sign the bank notes “Che”?
Have we had any more info on actual size of electorate in each seat? We have had all the boosting of big vote registration applications, but I have only seen one tweet about the actual electorate and that was 4-5 seats and basically it wasn't up in all but 1.
I'm also trying to get hold of the latest electorate data.
Andy_JS: what`s your current prediction on the number of SNP seats? I`m tempted to go Under 44.5 @ 5/6.
The only logical thing this could mean is a tory lead (or very close to a tie), a larger labour lead than last time wouldn't be "historic" by any means and if there's barely any change there's no reason for all the hype.
Of course he was saying the same thing 2 weeks ago and the result wasn't particularly exciting (labour lead growing a little bit) so it may well be a damp squib again.
I suppose I'm thinking about the Muslims I knew when I worked in London, of the sort that gave up red wine for Ramadan. But I did say "relatively", most religions have conservative views about gender and sexuality.
And to add... the minimum requirement for being a Muslim is quite low. To utter the shahada, pray five times a day, give to charity, fast during Ramadan and (if you are able) to go on the Hajj. You don't even have to go to the Mosque.
I suspect it's the praying five times a day that's the killer. You try scheduling that when you've got a day of wall-to-wall meetings and a train to catch in the evening.
Having to catch a train home in the evening would encourage many people to turn to prayer!
Not what I was expecting, in fact I might even be tempted to go along with the PB Tories and immediately say : outlier, although I can't see any comparable polling.
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
You would have thought it would have come Sat / Sun.
It would look soooooo desperate now... but of course it's still possible.
On the other hand, such a public acknowledgement that they're about to be creamed could break the back of their campaign entirely.
I have to say I have found the Labour advent calendar campaign choices slightly confusing. If you are going radical, why not go really populist, with legalize drugs, cancel student debt, overhaul tv sports rights. Planting 2bn trees ain't going to shift a vote.
Strange, isn't it? I feel like I could have written a better manifesto for them, despite not wanting 99% of the things they want.
I’ve wondered whether stuff like legalisation of drugs was vetoed by those wanting to hold the more socially conservative north. They just then forgot to put something appealing in instead.
Overhauling tv sports rights I am sure would have been popular in the North and cost the government nothing. Now it would screw the sports themselves, but bugger that they are all multi-millionaires anyway, right?
Risks the players/managers coming out against you?
I don't think a load of players managers / players claiming it would be horrific if BBC had to be given the rights to the EPL would cut much mustard. I think a lot of people who think, but you get £100k a week you greedy bugger.
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
You would have thought it would have come Sat / Sun.
It would look soooooo desperate now... but of course it's still possible.
On the other hand, such a public acknowledgement that they're about to be creamed could break the back of their campaign entirely.
I have to say I have found the Labour advent calendar campaign choices slightly confusing. If you are going radical, why not go really populist, with legalize drugs, cancel student debt, overhaul tv sports rights. Planting 2bn trees ain't going to shift a vote.
Strange, isn't it? I feel like I could have written a better manifesto for them, despite not wanting 99% of the things they want.
I’ve wondered whether stuff like legalisation of drugs was vetoed by those wanting to hold the more socially conservative north. They just then forgot to put something appealing in instead.
Overhauling tv sports rights I am sure would have been popular in the North and cost the government nothing. Now it would screw the sports themselves, but bugger that they are all multi-millionaires anyway, right?
I'm not sure it would be that popular. Tell Liverpool fans their club could no longer be able to afford Salah, Firmino, Mane and Van Dijk and see how truly popular that is. Liverpool will vote Labour this election but not because Liverpool fans aren't happy with LFC and the way the Premier League is going at the moment!
I would focus on the Mori data as they have a sufficient time series of consistent data to draw some conclusions about past performance. In my view those data suggest that if the 10 point lead of the polls is wrong it is much more likely to surprise to the downside than the upside.
Very very useful info....Worth adding yet again, many unis auto-enroll all students, so even though surge in registrations in student heavy areas, that doesn't mean they will actually vote....and remember the 2017 "youthquake" was a myth, when there was definitely much more enthusiasm among the yuff for the Messiah.
Rather annoying they haven't included the proper ons_id code for each seat in the downloadable data.
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.
To equate it with a race is racist.
"do look like ridiculous" Were you going to say 'letterboxes'?
No. That wouldn't be my personal language and I wouldn't copy someone else's for the sake of it, though it is apt. Could you answer some questions for me?
Do you think the niqab is required by Islam? Do you accept that there's over a billion Muslims worldwide who don't wear it? Do you think it is misogynistic? Do you think misogyny is wrong? Do you think criticising misogyny is appropriate?
My answers for what its worth are no, yes, yes, yes and yes.
And what about:
Do you think mocking victims of misogyny about it is appropriate?
It is only their country when they are granted citizenship, you are a guest and will remain so until then.
Oh really, just eff off. My father who fought for this country and lived here for 40 years was not a “guest”. Nor was my mother who lived here for 52 years. “Guests” indeed.
Did they never claim citizenship? If not, why not if you don't mind me asking?
I lived overseas for 7 years. I always felt like a guest of the country I was in.
Speaking personally I welcome to this country anyone who wants to come here, whether it be temporarily as a guest like I was overseas, or permanently in which case I think they should easily be able to attain citizenship.
My father did not need to, being Irish. My mother did not want or need to either. She loved living here but she was proud of being Italian (and a mix of other nationalities) and could never envisage describing herself as English or British. They were both proud of who they were and proud of their mixed British/Italian/Irish family.
They worked and paid taxes and contributed in myriad ways and brought up a family here. And in my father’s case volunteered to fight for it. How dare anyone consider such people to be “guests”.
Boris starts a marathon final tour of Labour Leave seats in Humberside and the North East at a fish market in Grimsby first thing this morning, which will culminate in Sunderland. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50706932
The tour resembles Trump's whirlwind tour of rustbelt Democratic states like Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania in the final days of the 2016 election that led him to victory
Why refer to the obnoxious Trump. Boris is not Trump and we do not need any comparison with him. See this
Actually you could say that Boris is a right wing populist.
It's an interesting election in that you could say it's a left wing populist (Corbyn) vs a right wing populist (Boris). Which populism is stronger than the other? We might find out.
Apart from Brexit, Boris is a one nation conservative and he is not on the right
Very very useful info....Worth adding yet again, many unis auto-enroll all students, so even though surge in registrations in student heavy areas, that doesn't mean they will actually vote....and remember the 2017 "youthquake" was a myth, when there was definitely much more enthusiasm among the yuff for the Messiah.
The auto enroll is a fair point but they wouldn’t be enrolling them now surely. It would have been at least a month ago when they all started?
Comments
"To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim."
Were you going to say 'letterboxes'?
However, it does feel as if Boris will get a majority but I cannot predict the number of seats he will win in his majority if his does win
And then we are well on our way
That felt like a big win was incoming at the time but I was too young to impartially judge (I probably still am).
By 1987 I was at university and too drunk to notice what was happening.
It may be that the reason it doesn't feel big now in 2019 is that we're all still nursing burns from the 2017 forecasts. But I can't see a majority on the scale of '83.
Corbyn's a worse leader than Foot was but a better campaigner.
WillS
* And she's back there standing again, with the same result probably.
He doesn't suggest that Islam needs to be eliminated or anything, he says we need to ask (not force) preachers to preach British values - just as we ask (not force) Christian clerics to do the same.
It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken, and by way of a first gesture the entire Muslim clergy might announce, loud and clear, for the benefit of all Bradford-born chipshop boys, that there is no eternal blessedness for the suicide bombers, there are no 72 virgins, and that the whole thing is a con and a fraud upon impressionable minds. That might be a first step towards what could be called the re-Britannification of Britain.
How is that passage I highlight wrong? It is entirely appropriate in my eyes just as it is appropriate in my eyes for Bartlett to suggest Christians look past scripture and not hate gays.
It seems intuitive, I grant you - but turnout is a function of so many dynamic factors, that I wonder if weather alone has any real discernible and discrete effect.
Notwithstanding the extremes of 20 foot snowdrifts, of course; but that is not what is forecast.
Welsh poll tease.
Equally, had he not have been leader May may have got her majority without a late Corbyn surge. Or indeed she may not have even called the election had she been facing someone more competent.
Lady humbugger has just opened an envelope bearing the statement "Important NHS Information Enclosed", just of the type you might receive if you were expecting news of a test result or an appointment.
Not so, it turns out to be a letter from the Labour Party saying that the NHS is not safe from Boris and Trump etc etc. The letter is all in NHS blue so to all the world it looks like a letter from the NHS.
To say she's not very impressed would be an understatement.
Maybe I'll wake up on Friday eating those words though...
I posted last night about how BBC always report on the night before GE how the result is uncertain, nobody really knows what's going on, there are reports of strange movements in marginals.
Well the other thing that always happens is that on the final day of campaigning they always just report about where the leaders are going and follow them around - they never do much if anything on specific individual policies.
So if there is a late bribe, I think it really needs to be announced now - at the latest this evening to get into tomorrow morning's papers.
I can remember for several days around roughly Polling Day minus 7, it really looked as if Maggie was stumbling. But I now haven't got the foggiest what the fuss was all about.
But remember one thing: in 1987 Maggie got a huge majority - but still lost seats, and was fighting a proper Social Democrat. This time Johnson needs to gain seats - and he's fighting a Trot.
The LGBT row in Birmingham schools is another example. The problems are not limited to the use of violence and it is not Islamophobic to point this out, even though some who do not want us to think hard about such issues will claim that it is.
There is a lot to be said for the Tories reinventing themselves every election and getting a new leader, clearly the usual anti Tory attack lines aren't working as well because Boris is an insurgent rather than an arbiter of austerity.
On the other hand, such a public acknowledgement that they're about to be creamed could break the back of their campaign entirely.
Do you think the niqab is required by Islam?
Do you accept that there's over a billion Muslims worldwide who don't wear it?
Do you think it is misogynistic?
Do you think misogyny is wrong?
Do you think criticising misogyny is appropriate?
My answers for what its worth are no, yes, yes, yes and yes.
https://order-order.com/2019/12/09/corbynista-breakdown-begins-prematurely/
but Guido is informed mental health in the Corbyn camp is truly at rock bottom now – with numerous bouts of depression and even one loyalist being sectioned over the stress of the flagging election campaign.
Just as a random example, being the first I happened to click on from here, Northumbrian Water appears to be owned by CK Hutchison Holdings and the Li Ka Shing Foundation, a Cayman Islands–registered multinational conglomerate headquartered in Hong Kong and a Hong Kong-based charitable organization respectively.
How many government bonds (which still definitely aren't borrowing) is he planning to swap their shares for, and what interest will they pay? Sounds like a particularly lousy deal for these HK institutions. Will the owners just have to acquiesce? Won't they have some recourse to the law somewhere?
That do you?
He has form for teasing.
Yeah right - bye bye investment into UK
https://twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1203960263227121665
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/01/29/angels-and-fools-cyclefree-on-trumps-latest-executive-order/
If we approach the polls not as an accurate snapshot, but as a blurry, unfocused photograph, providing us with an idea of broad trends rather than a crystal clear picture, the gap between Labour and the Tories has been narrowing as the campaign goes on, which according to some has increased the possibility of a hung parliament.
https://novaramedia.com/2019/12/09/dont-trust-the-polls-labour-could-still-win-this-election/
This follows two leaflets from Mike Kane, the Labour MP, which were also NHS, NHS, NHS. But no photos of Jeremy Corbyn looking enthusiastic or pointing at things.
Nothing from the Lib Dems or the other rag tag and bobtails yet.
Really, the candidates here are just going through the motions.
So - are they islamophobic?
A funny thing about Trump is that he regularly recommends books on Twitter that have just been published, usually on such subjects as how great Trump is, or how the numerous investigations into his actions are shams. I'm 99% certain that Trump has not read a word of those books.
I lived overseas for 7 years. I always felt like a guest of the country I was in.
Speaking personally I welcome to this country anyone who wants to come here, whether it be temporarily as a guest like I was overseas, or permanently in which case I think they should easily be able to attain citizenship.
Vote winner.
Implies a 7 point lead?
Parliament will set the price, you get a govt bond in exchange. At what coupon, at what maturity, who the hell this side of sanity is going to buy them, issued as they would be by a govt setting the price? Hardly going to compete with Swiss Francs is it in the international markets. Is he going to go the full hog sign the bank notes “Che”?
This is lunacy pure and simple.
https://mobile.twitter.com/election_data/status/1204018010417225728
If this happens in London, how many defenders will the niqab have left on PB?
Of course he was saying the same thing 2 weeks ago and the result wasn't particularly exciting (labour lead growing a little bit) so it may well be a damp squib again.
https://order-order.com/2019/12/09/corbyns-1980s-socialist-newspaper-published-pro-paedo-articles/
Very very useful info....Worth adding yet again, many unis auto-enroll all students, so even though surge in registrations in student heavy areas, that doesn't mean they will actually vote....and remember the 2017 "youthquake" was a myth, when there was definitely much more enthusiasm among the yuff for the Messiah.
Rather annoying they haven't included the proper ons_id code for each seat in the downloadable data.
Do you think mocking victims of misogyny about it is appropriate?
They worked and paid taxes and contributed in myriad ways and brought up a family here. And in my father’s case volunteered to fight for it. How dare anyone consider such people to be “guests”.
To be fair to Survation, they're not saying 14% lead. They're saying Tories 42-48, Lab 28-34 (and even then 5% of the time outside those bands)
If it ends up 43-33 it's not contradicting them at all.
The auto enroll is a fair point but they wouldn’t be enrolling them now surely. It would have been at least a month ago when they all started?