Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As we move another month closer the killer fact for CON re

13»

Comments

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568

    SeanT said:

    He was reasonably persuasive that, in the end, people simply won't vote for Ed.

    Define "people"!

    I'm starting to think that Ed was, and is, the best choice of Labour leader to appeal to left-leaning ex-LibDems. He appears concerned about social justice, not gung-ho for overseas intervention, thoughtful, a bit wonkish and even awkward. All good qualities for this swing group.

    Compare the alternatives in 2010: DavidM (far too Blairite to appeal to anti-Iraq leftist LibDems), Ed Balls (far too much of a bruiser for this sector of the electorate, it would be like LibDems voting for John Reid), Andy Burnham (tainted goods) and Diane Abbott (no comment).

    It doesn't matter if the Conservatives like him (they won't vote for him) or, even, whether tribal Labour members like him (they'll vote for him anyway). What matters is that he appeals to the swing group of ex-LibDems, and I suspect he does this better than anyone other candidate.
    Very accurate post IMO.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    perdix said:

    tim said:

    Brett Wigdortz ‏@Wigdortz 15m
    Ofsted inspects 1,144 independent schools, 40% don't have good leadership; a third ranked below good overall (vs only 20% of state schools)

    A lot of people being ripped off in that sector

    Yet independent schools dominate university entry. Must be something in the water.

    I'm looking forward to rEd appearing on Watchdog demanding action for fee paying parents.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    SeanT said:

    He was reasonably persuasive that, in the end, people simply won't vote for Ed.

    Define "people"!

    I'm starting to think that Ed was, and is, the best choice of Labour leader to appeal to left-leaning ex-LibDems. He appears concerned about social justice, not gung-ho for overseas intervention, thoughtful, a bit wonkish and even awkward. All good qualities for this swing group.

    Compare the alternatives in 2010: DavidM (far too Blairite to appeal to anti-Iraq leftist LibDems), Ed Balls (far too much of a bruiser for this sector of the electorate, it would be like LibDems voting for John Reid), Andy Burnham (tainted goods) and Diane Abbott (no comment).

    It doesn't matter if the Conservatives like him (they won't vote for him) or, even, whether tribal Labour members like him (they'll vote for him anyway). What matters is that he appeals to the swing group of ex-LibDems, and I suspect he does this better than anyone other candidate.
    Very accurate post IMO.
    Best of a bad bunch doesn't mean he's good. He's unfit to lead.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,963
    edited December 2013
    Ooops.

    Judge in the Nigella staff case has told the jury to disregard the favourable comments made by Dave about Nigella.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    SeanT said:

    He was reasonably persuasive that, in the end, people simply won't vote for Ed.

    Define "people"!

    I'm starting to think that Ed was, and is, the best choice of Labour leader to appeal to left-leaning ex-LibDems. He appears concerned about social justice, not gung-ho for overseas intervention, thoughtful, a bit wonkish and even awkward. All good qualities for this swing group.

    Compare the alternatives in 2010: DavidM (far too Blairite to appeal to anti-Iraq leftist LibDems), Ed Balls (far too much of a bruiser for this sector of the electorate, it would be like LibDems voting for John Reid), Andy Burnham (tainted goods) and Diane Abbott (no comment).

    It doesn't matter if the Conservatives like him (they won't vote for him) or, even, whether tribal Labour members like him (they'll vote for him anyway). What matters is that he appeals to the swing group of ex-LibDems, and I suspect he does this better than anyone other candidate.
    Spot on.

    David would have been seen as too Blairite for the Lib Dems and I doubt Labour would have avoided the divisions that have always occurred when the Party lost office in the past.One of Ed's least remarked upon achievements is that Labour in opposition has shown less internal dissent than the Tories in government.
  • Argentina is melting:

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/12/11/argentina-is-melting/

    Argentina was the 8th economy in the world a hundred years ago. Young, exuberant, endless beef to export. But at some point in the 20th century it discovered socialism. And then the future was gone.

    Likewise Venezuela.

    And now France.

    And maybe soon enough us too?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,963
    edited December 2013
    Sky nick pisa ‏@NickPisa 1m

    #Nigella Lawson case jury told by judge that regrettable PM gave an interview in which he spoke of supporting Team Nigella.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Watching the Daily Politics... Frank Field piece on child poverty, and development

    Conclusion is that the first two or three years of nurturing from Mother to child are more important than any schooling in realising the child's potential...

    Could this be a reason for Asian children doing better in poor areas? I don't know the stats, but I am guessing that Asian families in London are less likely to divorce, and the Mother is less likely to work, so the child gets emotional and educational nurturing at this vital stage
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    Its always hilarious when somebody gets to do a job in the public for which they have no aptitude or right to do, the SA signer is the latest . We have had Flowers at the Co-op recently and who can forget that bloke who winged his way into letting Souness give him a game in the premiership and being total rubbish-even the SA signer does not come close to that cock up

    Iain Duncan Smith at the DWP is hilarious too.

    Nah - it's just you that thinks so .


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10511145/Universal-Credit-politicians-always-pay-a-price-for-trying-to-change-the-world.html

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    "Nah - it's just you that thinks so ."

    Of course, IDS has widespread respect for his competence honesty and intellect right across the spectrum, and particularly in the Tory Party.

    He's bringing in UC - against the forces of public sector uselessness. More important to achieve than be liked.

    You have this deep desire to be seen to be clever, superior, more prescient, to be proved right by the court of public opinion in a "poll" over and above getting things done e.g. getting a job - did you dog run away and abandon you as a child or something ?



  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    tim said:

    What an idiot

    Sky nick pisa ‏@NickPisa 2m
    #Nigella Lawson case jury told by judge that regrettable PM gave an interview in which he spoke of supporting Team Nigella.

    Unlike Ed of course.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/12/now-ed-miliband-is-on-teamnigella-too/
  • TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    "Nah - it's just you that thinks so ."

    Of course, IDS has widespread respect for his competence honesty and intellect right across the spectrum, and particularly in the Tory Party.

    He's bringing in UC - against the forces of public sector uselessness. More important to achieve than be liked.

    You have this deep desire to be seen to be clever, superior, more prescient, to be proved right by the court of public opinion in a "poll" over and above getting things done e.g. getting a job - did you dog run away and abandon you as a child or something ?
    One of the things that I read ages ago the made me think "this IT project is going to be a clusterfvck" was that they were supposed to be quite a way through the development and there were all kinds of really important things about what the project was supposed to do that hadn't been decided. This is something that often seems to be a problem with government IT projects - allegedly part of the cause of the ObamaCare fiasco was that the White House wouldn't give out details to contactors before the election in case they were used against them.

    But it's not a public sector uselessness problem, except to the extent that the minister in charge is part of the public sector. It's a leadership problem.
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    tim said:

    Robert Booth ‏@Robert_Booth 58s
    Grillo trial judge tells jury to ignore David Cameron's #TeamNigella support in Spectator. Matter of "regret" and waste of court time.

    Hopefully Dominic Grieve can issue dismal Dave with the same warning teenagers on Twitter get.
    All morning spent discussing the fop apparently.

    Actually it's The Spectator as publisher that are responsible.

    (Twitter users are self-publishers, so your comparison is irrelevant).
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Ed has had his Butt whupped by McCluskey again today .... Sooo strong that lad...he has just joined Nigellas team and "U" turned on Heathrow..busy boy
  • Patrick said:

    Argentina is melting:

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/12/11/argentina-is-melting/

    Argentina was the 8th economy in the world a hundred years ago. Young, exuberant, endless beef to export. But at some point in the 20th century it discovered socialism. And then the future was gone.

    Likewise Venezuela.

    And now France.

    And maybe soon enough us too?

    If they do get in they will wreck this country beyond belief. The only good thing is that in 2020 socialism would be out for a generation at least.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    "Nah - it's just you that thinks so ."

    Of course, IDS has widespread respect for his competence honesty and intellect right across the spectrum, and particularly in the Tory Party.

    He's bringing in UC - against the forces of public sector uselessness. More important to achieve than be liked.

    You have this deep desire to be seen to be clever, superior, more prescient, to be proved right by the court of public opinion in a "poll" over and above getting things done e.g. getting a job - did you dog run away and abandon you as a child or something ?
    One of the things that I read ages ago the made me think "this IT project is going to be a clusterfvck" was that they were supposed to be quite a way through the development and there were all kinds of really important things about what the project was supposed to do that hadn't been decided. This is something that often seems to be a problem with government IT projects - allegedly part of the cause of the ObamaCare fiasco was that the White House wouldn't give out details to contactors before the election in case they were used against them.

    But it's not a public sector uselessness problem, except to the extent that the minister in charge is part of the public sector. It's a leadership problem.
    Indeed. One of the many odd things about the Tories' strategicc approach to voters is to write off a large number of them as part of the "useless" public sector. A generation ago teachers, doctors, university lecturers and public sector managers were part of the Tories' core support.

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    Patrick said:

    Argentina is melting:

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/12/11/argentina-is-melting/

    Argentina was the 8th economy in the world a hundred years ago. Young, exuberant, endless beef to export. But at some point in the 20th century it discovered socialism. And then the future was gone.

    Likewise Venezuela.

    And now France.

    And maybe soon enough us too?

    If they do get in they will wreck this country beyond belief. The only good thing is that in 2020 socialism would be out for a generation at least.
    Might be an opportune moment to quietly send a few more Typhoons south.

  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    SeanT said:

    The schizophrenic line may have taken a blow:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25345627

    The owners of the firm that provided the interpreter at the Mandela memorial have gone missing.

    It's quite an onerous deception, this schizo thing. Presuming that he is lying, this chap now has to pretend to be schizophrenic for the rest of his life. Uh....
    Except schizophrenia can go away, can be treated, and isn't always obvious
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    tim said:



    The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous.
    Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.

    No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.

    @Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.

    Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.

    I am not changing the argument, you are. All of the wealthiest people in the UK have had a tax cut. Some now pay more tax overall than they did; others don't, they pay less.

    tim's point was that they have head "their taxes cut". That is not the same as have had "a tax cut".
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    tim said:



    The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous.
    Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.

    No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.

    @Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.

    Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.
    What about VAT? Bears harder on the less well off/poor because it's on most things apart from most food.
    Am just thinking back to the third party charts. Believe it was OBR, could have been IFS. From recollection, the poorest decile had suffered from benefit cuts, most of the rest were marginally up, the 2nd richest had suffered a bit and the richest had suffered the worst.

  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    tim said:

    What an idiot

    Sky nick pisa ‏@NickPisa 2m
    #Nigella Lawson case jury told by judge that regrettable PM gave an interview in which he spoke of supporting Team Nigella.

    Cameron is on neither on the jury or the judge. It matters not what he says. Why would it be regrettable in any way?
    he said this:
    "‘I’m a massive fan, I’ve had the great pleasure of meeting her a couple of times and she always strikes me as a very funny and warm person. Nancy [Cameron’s nine-year-old daughter] and I sometimes watch a bit of Nigella on telly. Not in court, I hasten to add.’"

    Doesnt amount i any way an effort to influence the proceedings.
  • Good Afternoon, all.

    It appears that "The Independent" may have tracked down the fake signer:
    "Video footage has emerged which appears to show the South African sign language interpreter Thamsanqa Jantjie, accused of “faking” his performance at Nelson Mandela’s memorial, working alongside president Jacob Zuma at an event last year." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/video-fake-mandela-memorial-sign-language-interpreter-at-anc-event-alongside-jacob-zuma-8999687.html

    (The event in the video shows Zuma singing "Kill the Boer" at the ANC conference last year; Jantjie is half-heartedly signing - well, he's moving his hands and arms, at any rate - alongside him).
  • 45% psychopath for me
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:



    The pathetic whining and blaming of other people because he's seen as prioritising tax cuts for the rich is ridiculous.
    Get a proper bloody strategist or stop bloody moaning.

    No whining or blaming other people. It was an astute political move by Brown but bad for the country to raise the tax rate. It was always going to be politically difficult to defuse. But the Coalition did the right thing. It's called governing in the national interest.

    @Charles - All of the UK's wealthiest people have seen their income taxes cut. Those who receive payment by dividend have seen the tax they pay here cut too. That some then choose to do things that may incur higher taxes than before is a different matter. As with VAT you choose and you may lose.

    Stop trying to change the argument. Tim's point was on tax, not income tax. Total tax paid by the top decile has gone up. They have lost the most from the various changes the government introduced. They pay the highest share of income tax. The income tax cut was explicitly linked to a rise in stamp duty - even setting aside the beneficial behavourial changes.

    I am not changing the argument, you are. All of the wealthiest people in the UK have had a tax cut. Some now pay more tax overall than they did; others don't, they pay less.

    tim's point was that they have head "their taxes cut". That is not the same as have had "a tax cut".
    But the political message that the Tories have sent is that their priority is tax cuts for the rich. This was a catastrophic political error IMHO.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    45%. Everything in moderation, including moderation is a good byline.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    So Chuka Umunna says that Labour won't tolerate segregation in our universities. Well, one cheer for him. And how is he going to achieve this? Will he also tell some of his fellow Labour MPs who have appeared at events featuring some of the Islamist speakers pushing this segregation (and a whole host of other repellent views as well) that they should not be giving their imprimatur to such people?

    And why wasn't Labour's Shadow Minister for Women, Gloria de Piero, willing to appear on the Today programme to discuss this issue? If this isn't something for a Minister for Women to get concerned about, what is?

  • But the political message that the Tories have sent is that their priority is tax cuts for the rich. This was a catastrophic political error IMHO.

    Perhaps they should have put them up, and got the rich to pay less tax by introducing some new avoidance schemes.

    Would this have been politically good?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    SeanT said:



    A post that is simultaneously astute, yet foolishly myopic. I agree with your thesis that Ed is best placed to appeal to soft left Lib Dem floaters. And yes they are a key constituency.

    But they are not the ONLY floating voters (though you'd not know this if you only read certain pb-ers).

    Does Ed appeal to the white working classes? Does he appeal to UKIPpers or BNPers who are disgruntled with politics in toto? Does he appeal to Scots? Does he appeal to Blairite voters (a la Dan Hodges)?

    Most important, does he appeal to Brits of all stripes who can see the recovery improving, however tentatively, and want to be reassured that Labour under Miliband and Balls aren't going to trash it all over again? The polls suggest that No, he does not reassure these people.

    For Miliband to win the election with a majority, keeping the LD switchers is necessary but not sufficient.

    How many divisions has Dan Hodges got? There are only two groups of voters who show a readiness to shift that isn't more or less within the margin of error of ZERO, the others being Kippers. 2010 Labour voters generally remain Labour. Non-UKIP Tories generally remain Tory. Non-Labour LibDems generally remain LibDem. After 3.5 years, you'd expect to see movements in these other groups that you list if they were going to shift radically one way or another.



  • SeanT said:

    Freggles said:

    SeanT said:

    The schizophrenic line may have taken a blow:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25345627

    The owners of the firm that provided the interpreter at the Mandela memorial have gone missing.

    It's quite an onerous deception, this schizo thing. Presuming that he is lying, this chap now has to pretend to be schizophrenic for the rest of his life. Uh....
    Except schizophrenia can go away, can be treated, and isn't always obvious
    He was eerily waving his arms in front of 500 million TV viewers, pretending to be someone else, that's tending towards the obvious in terms of madness, wouldn't you say?


    Funny how if one does something wrong and gets caught out (like the SA signer) then one often lies about why even if that lie could mean admitting to non existent bigger issues.
    he could just have admitted he does not know sign language and after a bit of a telling off maybe that would be it. Now he has said he has a potentially severe type of mental illness which could see him have more issues and tests etc.
  • Miss Jones, Zuma seems a rather unworthy successor to Mandela. Then again, Mbeki was hardly top class either.

    Mr. T, I had a quick look at the test. I briefly covered psychopathology at university, and those questions are a not that great. For example, there are 17 (I think, might be a little lower) major traits of psychopaths, so there's not even 1 question per trait. More importantly, people always over-estimate how similar they are to statements, leading to overly high rates of self-diagnosis.

    So, when I got the list of traits I instead, cunningly, asked my mother which she thought applied to me. [15 and a half, for those wondering].
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Pulpstar said:

    45%. Everything in moderation, including moderation is a good byline.

    9% psychopath

    What a drip

  • SeanT said:

    45% psychopath for me

    Apparently, reading the Financial Times (as I do) is seriously indicative of psychopathy. According to that test.
    its a good job they didn't ask you what type of stories do you like to write about SeanT!!
  • 21% psychopath for me.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    I could be in the wrong place; 36% ‘Everything in moderation – including moderation’ might sum up your approach to life
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Erm, 73%...
  • Mr. Corporeal, the sandals and rocket sandwiches are just a cunning cover for your psychopathic ways!

    On a more serious note, psychopathology has probably had historical advantages as well as the well-known disadvantages (ie serial killers can quite often be psychopaths). High intelligence, superficial charm and ruthlessness makes them natural leaders, and many successful businessmen and politicians have probably been psychopaths.

    Oh, and the Ch4 trailer suggesting 1% of Britins are psychos is wrong, unless the stats have changed in the last few years. It's 0.25%. 1% is the US rate, possibly attributably to it being the most individualistic and competitive of countries.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    surbiton said:

    Dare I say with AV, the Tories and UKIP [ maybe, the Tories alone ] would have formed the government. The Lib Dems gave their coalition partners a lifeline which was spurned.

    Indeed.

    If the Tories fail to stay in government after 2015 they will have only themselves to blame.

    They made three basic errors - failure to keep the Lib Dems on board with the boundary changes, failure to support AV (gratuitously insulting Clegg in the process) and the cut in the top rate of tax. These three factors seem set to doom them to another period in opposition and it becomes harder and harder to see how they can find enough votes in future to win a majority on their own.

    If the Tories lose power in 2015 they will blame everyone but themselves. Even Nelson Mandela may get a few blowbacks for dying in a biased way on the day the 2013 Autumn Statement was made.

    And who will Labour blame if they don't win in 2015?

    Thatcher or Murdoch.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited December 2013
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:



    A post that is simultaneously astute, yet foolishly myopic. I agree with your thesis that Ed is best placed to appeal to soft left Lib Dem floaters. And yes they are a key constituency.

    But they are not the ONLY floating voters (though you'd not know this if you only read certain pb-ers).

    Does Ed appeal to the white working classes? Does he appeal to UKIPpers or BNPers who are disgruntled with politics in toto? Does he appeal to Scots? Does he appeal to Blairite voters (a la Dan Hodges)?

    Most important, does he appeal to Brits of all stripes who can see the recovery improving, however tentatively, and want to be reassured that Labour under Miliband and Balls aren't going to trash it all over again? The polls suggest that No, he does not reassure these people.

    For Miliband to win the election with a majority, keeping the LD switchers is necessary but not sufficient.

    How many divisions has Dan Hodges got? There are only two groups of voters who show a readiness to shift that isn't more or less within the margin of error of ZERO, the others being Kippers. 2010 Labour voters generally remain Labour. Non-UKIP Tories generally remain Tory. Non-Labour LibDems generally remain LibDem. After 3.5 years, you'd expect to see movements in these other groups that you list if they were going to shift radically one way or another.



    How many people who are saying "I will vote Labour" are only saying that because Labour is the only serious Opposition party, therefore expressing support for them is the only way of registering dislike of the Coalition? Labour's support is therefore, by definition, unusually soft.

    We have a Coalition government. This is unprecedented. It makes polling unusually difficult and, to my mind, unusually unreliable. Look how often the pollsters underestimate the Kipper votes. Look at the serious political analysts who are saying Labour will NOT win.

    You are approaching the next election as if it is a normal election. It isn't. Recall that no opposition leader has ever won with personal polling as negative as Ed Miliband's.

    That said, I believe that right now Red is heading for a narrow victory, but there is no reason for Tories to despair - and I doubt Labour strategists share your silly complacency.
    Come now Sean, a few more digs at Anna Soubry and Broxtowe's a shoo-in for Labour.

    Expenses ahoy!
  • On topic - the tories don't need to appeal to lib dem voters, they need the lib dems to appeal to lib dem voters.
    The tories may actually be hoping the lib dems state they will not enter another tory led coalition in that it could bring back lab/lib dem switchers to the lib dems and thus hold a few more tory seats against labour.
    If the lib dems could appeal more to their own vote then the tories only need to appeal to the UKIP/.tory switchers
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    Cyclefree said:

    So Chuka Umunna says that Labour won't tolerate segregation in our universities. Well, one cheer for him. And how is he going to achieve this? Will he also tell some of his fellow Labour MPs who have appeared at events featuring some of the Islamist speakers pushing this segregation (and a whole host of other repellent views as well) that they should not be giving their imprimatur to such people?

    I once got invited to a Muslim event where the audience was separated into men and women. There was no difference in comfort and both sides asked lots of questions. I didn't think I should stamp my foot and demand that the audience shuffle round so they were mixed. Do you feel this is a critical issue?

    However, I would not speak at an event where only men were invited. Mohammed Sarwar (now a Governor in Pakistan, I believe) told me that he'd been asked to do that early on as an MP and had flatly refused - "if you want me to speak, then everyone must be allowed in". That does seem to me to be a critical issue.

    This sort of thing comes up with various groups. I remember a Brethren group asking to come to Parliament - I showed them round and offered them tea and biscuits, to which they politely said sorry, we do not eat with non-believers. I said ah well, never mind, and put the biscuits away for my next visitors. But there, by contrast with the Muslim audience, it was very noticeable that the girls were silent and deferential, and when I directly asked them things they looked embarrassed and shy. I think it's genuinely tricky how far you try to force people to behave out of their comfort zone, and you need to concentrate on equality of access rather than things like seating arrangements (and clothing).

    As for speakers with repellent views, the main reason to attend would be to dispute them. I've visited the home of one of a group of BNP supporters when they asked me to come and explain my ghastly views, and chatted to them in the living room, adorned with a huge Confederate flag. Persuaded two of them that immigration wasn't as bad as they thought, too.It takes a lot to make me refuse to go to anything.

  • On segregation , if everyone attending wants to sit in a certain place ,well ok even in a public funded setting. However what annoyed me about the CEO Universities uk was that she made out that the universities had to accede to the guest speakers demands to segregate . I nearly screamed and said 'oh stop being a wet liberal' and put your fut down in the face of prima donnas everywhere be they pop stars or fussy Islamic speakers
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''I once got invited to a Muslim event where the audience was separated into men and women.''

    Interesting. This segregation thing polices itself, doesn't it?

    I'd never sit in a segregated audience on principle, which sort of implies that all the people who do attend these events must be OK with it.

    If I found myself shepherded into a 'male only' area, I'd simply walk out.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited December 2013
    'But there, by contrast with the Muslim audience, it was very noticeable that the girls were silent and deferential, and when I directly asked them things they looked embarrassed and shy.'

    A ridiculous state of affairs in 21st century Britain.
  • On segregation , if everyone attending wants to sit in a certain place ,well ok even in a public funded setting. However what annoyed me about the CEO Universities uk lady on Radio 4 this morning was that she made out that the universities had to accede to the guest speakers demands to segregate . I nearly screamed and said 'oh stop being such a wet liberal' and put your foot down once in a while in the face of such prima donnas be they pop stars or fussy Islamic speakers

    I meant to say!
  • F1: Perez has joined Force India:
    http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12477/9068148/its-official-sergio-perez-joins-force-india-to-partner-nico-hulkenberg-in-2014

    This was widely expected, though not certain (Sutil could've got it). Indeed, the German reportedly had a contract signed some time ago. I suspect Hulkenberg will prove the faster of the two. That said, Perez is probably quite a bit lighter.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I nearly screamed and said 'oh stop being such a wet liberal' and put your foot down once in a while in the face of such prima donnas be they pop stars or fussy Islamic speakers

    It's down to the audience isn't it? if people boycotted events that were segregated (as I certainly would), they would cease to be events. No need for laws, bans etc. then.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    @Nick Palmer:

    I do think this is a critical issue and this is why. If I go to a mosque I remove my shoes and abide by the rules of the mosque. Ditto in a synagogue or a CoE church. It is only good manners. But a speaker at a university or at any other public event - at an institution paid for by all of us - does not have the right to say that the audience should agree with and act in accordance with his views. What such speakers are trying to do is to impose their views on the public space - by saying that because the speaker believes in certain views then all those who are there to listen to him must agree with him by complying with the behavioural norms which his views require.

    This has nothing to do with his right to freedom of speech since speaking to a mixed audience sitting where they want does not infringe those rights. It is about imposing those views on others by - effectively - making those others agree with them. It is like a speaker saying that he will only speak if everyone who comes to listen agrees in advance that they will agree to his views. It is the same as those speakers who seek to attack women who are - in their view - immodestly dressed or holding hands with men or drinking alcohol because they are in an Islamic area (as 2 people were recently convicted of doing). It is people seeking to create an Islamic space in the public space and on people who are not Muslim or who, if they are, do not share or accept that this is the proper interpretation of Islam.

    Let me put the question to you in another way: if a speaker from one of the South African churches which supported apartheid insisted that the audience must be segregated on racial lines would you be equally sanguine? If an Islamic speaker said that he would not allow any Jews to attend a lecture at a university or any gays, would you be equally sanguine?

    As you know - and you can get more details from the Harry's Place website - there are some of your fellow Labour MPs who have attended events not to challenge people with repellent views but to support them. I would hope that you would find this as appalling as I do but the Labour leadership have been very reluctant to confront such dreadful behaviour.

    I'm afraid that I do feel very strongly about any infringement of women's rights/women's equality, just as I do about attacks on gays by some of the same groups - and for very personal reasons. I wish the Labour party were as vociferous about standing up for women as they ought to be and standing against fascistic cults which would demolish the freedoms and advantages of liberalism, were they given half a chance.

  • taffys said:

    I nearly screamed and said 'oh stop being such a wet liberal' and put your foot down once in a while in the face of such prima donnas be they pop stars or fussy Islamic speakers

    It's down to the audience isn't it? if people boycotted events that were segregated (as I certainly would), they would cease to be events. No need for laws, bans etc. then.

    yes but presumably most of the audience were muslims who were more used to agreeing to segregate than most. The fact that the university said it had to be segregated is the point I object to -they have no need to hold to the same line as islam or any other religion . They should have used their power as host to refuse the demand . Sometimes liberal institutions become too liberal and thinking of others or other cultures to actually stand up for core liberal values (like freedom to mix and sit where you like)
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    "the universities had to accede to the guest speakers demands to segregate"

    This is utter twaddle and if it is indicative of the level of thinking at universities they may as well close down.

    Presumably UCL will agree to a BNP speaker who demands that no blacks be allowed to attend or to some anti-Semite saying that there can be no Jews. Perhaps universities could dust off those old "No blacks, no Jews, no dogs" posters from the 1960's.

    The universities should simply tell the speakers that if they want to speak then all are welcome to attend and they can sit where they damn well like and dress how they like. Free speech means the right to speak not the right to tell other people how to think and behave. Universities need to grow a pair.
  • Meanwhile, in Spain:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25353086

    Apparently Madrid's going to block the independence referendum pencilled in for 9 November. Not very shocking, but there we are.

    Is widespread violence possible/likely?
  • Quite so, Miss Cyclefree.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Off topic, sparked by something that appeared on Guido, I just started doing some research into the Babar Ahmad case.

    I wonder if recent events in this matter may have affected the London Mayoralty chances of certain potential candidates
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    SeanT said:

    Gotta love the Express:

    "The Christmas from HELL: Biggest winter storm EVER to wreck holidays for millions in UK

    CHRISTMAS will be ruined for tens of millions of people as the worst winter storms in recorded HISTORY rip through Britain, forecasters warned today."

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/448115/Christmas-weather-forecast-Winter-storms-warning-as-snow-gales-and-floods-threaten-UK

    Doesn't the Express warn about armageddon on a half hourly basis though ?
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited December 2013
    Will the good news ever stop coming?

    Some unusually precise economic forecasts from the British Chambers of Commerce:

    • In the second half of 2014, UK GDP will exceed its pre-recession peak of 2008.

    • GDP growth in 2014 has been revised up from 2.2% to 2.7%.

    • Its forecast for GDP growth in 2013 has been revised up from 1.3% to 1.4%.

    • The BoE threshold of unemployment at 7.0% or below will be achieved in Q3 2015, a quarter earlier than previously forecast.

    • Interest rates are forecast to rise by 0.25% in Q4 2015 and a further 1% in 2016.

    And now the commentary from John Longworth, head of the BCC:

    "As household consumption slows in the medium term, we have to find ways of boosting business investment and exports, as rebalancing our economy is critical to our long-term economic future.”

    "If we make important decisions to fix the long-term structural failure in business finance, continue to deliver a major infrastructure upgrade and do more to support exports, it is possible to achieve not just a good recovery, but a truly great and sustainable economy."


    They obviously make good tractors at the BCC.
  • Hmm. Reminds me that I need to post some presents fairly soon. I prefer they arrive early than risk them being late.

    I hope we don't have another terrible winter. So far, if a bit muddy, it's not been too bad.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    @cyclefree - I see the point about not letting speakers impose restrictions. But that wasn't the case that I was discussing. I was invited to speak in a hall attached to a mosque, and on arrival found that the men and women were sitting separately. I'd no reason to think this was involuntary. What, exactly, do you feel I should have done? It's a genuine question - I felt a bit uneasy about it, but didn't think I could instruct them how they should sit in their own premises.
  • In defiance of the Express, I'm spending Christmas day on the north Atlantic coast of northern Ireland. I half want there to be a humongous storm, because we have 270 degree views of the sea.
  • I see the realisation is gradually filtering through to some of the PB Hodges. It wasn't long ago that they were predicting a Tory majority. Now quite a few are predicting a hung parliament. At least the penny is starting to drop with some of them. Will be interesting if the scales will fall from their eyes and we will see a few of the PB Hodges predicting a Labour majority. I reckon it will be around Christmas 2014, and mayhem and Tory infighting will then ensue.
  • antifrank said:

    In defiance of the Express, I'm spending Christmas day on the north Atlantic coast of northern Ireland. I half want there to be a humongous storm, because we have 270 degree views of the sea.

    You would be better off on the western coast of the Republic, if the forecast is correct.

    On the north coast of NI, there is a 75% chance of gusts exceeding 30 knots, whereas on the west coast of Eire there is a 75% chance of gusts exceeding 40 knots. For storm force winds greater than 50 knots you have a 50% chance in Eire and a 25% in NI.

    Still, with some luck, it will be windy enough for you.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Betting Post
    ____________

    If you think Guido's revelations affect Khan's mayoral chances (I don't) may I suggest opening a Winner.com account and taking the 12-1 on Tessa Jowell (She is 6s with Ladbrokes and 9-2 with Paddy Power). To be honest it is good value no matter what you think of the other's chances.

    They give you a £25 free bet (Matched) also when you open so effectively you could get £25 on at a massive 24-1...
  • NextNext Posts: 826
    New Thread
This discussion has been closed.