Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How 2010 Lib Dems rate the Conservatives and Labour on key

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited December 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How 2010 Lib Dems rate the Conservatives and Labour on key policy areas

Following on from this morning’s post on the importance of 2010 Lib Dems to Labour’s current polling I’ve now been looking at policy areas to see how this crucial group of potential swing voters view the blues and the reds.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • tim said:

    Gove is a triumph, and Daves big personal NHS lie will hopefully cost him badly.

    Even Hunt and Twigg agree with Gove on schools Scouse, that's why shadowing Gove has proved so difficult. Anybody who favours Labour on the NHS with Burnham at the helm needs to give their head a wobble.
  • All the options are somewhat interconnected. Its why we don't elect different parties for different departments. I am not sure why pollsters do this type of polling or parties rely on it so much.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366

    I got 90% on the psychopath scale.

    OK, I cheated, I pretended to be Ed Milliband. I only got 42% when I answered as myself.
  • tim said:

    Issue salience (you and your family) 2010 Lib Dems

    1.Economy
    2.Health
    3.Pensions
    4.Housing
    5=Education
    5=Tax
    7.Family and Childcare
    8.The environment
    9.Welfare Benefits
    10.Immigration
    11.Transport
    12.Crime

    But Tim you often make a connection between the economy and immigration. Others make one between housing and immigration etc. Its says something about the typical lib dem voter if they care about the economy but not about immigration . That something might be they need to be more 'joined up'
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    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.
  • It's interesting, but I'd love to know how 2010 LDs see the Lib Dems too.

    Clearly, the figures in the leader indicate a strong 2010 LD bias to Labour, which of course reinforces what we're seeing in the polls, but one of the most crucial questions is whether the 2010 LD-Lab switchers will stay with Team rEd come the election or whether it's a mid-term / non-government move that will melt away as the prospect of their being responsible for electing a government forms a part of their thinking. The Tories don't need to win the 2010 LDs over (though obviously it makes life easier for them if that does happen); they just need to peel them off Labour, one way or another.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    edited December 2013
    CD13 said:


    I got 90% on the psychopath scale.

    OK, I cheated, I pretended to be Ed Milliband. I only got 42% when I answered as myself.

    I see you're joking. I got 30 % and therefore am well-balanced and socially oriented. But I don't believe they asked if I harbour grudges (a powerfully Anglo-Saxon/Scottish trait I think).
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    The logic of the pollsters argument seems to rest on these statements:-.

    1. Many lib dem voters won';t vote lib dem next time around
    2. These switchers will pretty much all vote for somebody next time around.
    3. Those votes are far more likely to go to labour than conservative parties.
    4. This logic does not hold for tory/lib dem seats, where lib dems will tend to be much more loyal, and will turn out in equal force to last time.

    It's fair enough, I guess.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited December 2013
    Are the 2010 Lib Dems able to explain how they think a Labour government would handle the economy better than the Conservatives (and their former party in government)?

    Ignorance and certainly is a dangerous mix.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    @Avery
    John Redwood's gone off script again:

    " The Office of Budget responsibility now endorses what I have been saying for the last three years. Public spending is rising in real terms as well as cash terms."

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/12/11/its-official-there-is-real-growth-in-uk-public-spending/
  • @Avery
    John Redwood's gone off script again:

    " The Office of Budget responsibility now endorses what I have been saying for the last three years. Public spending is rising in real terms as well as cash terms."

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/12/11/its-official-there-is-real-growth-in-uk-public-spending/

    John Redwood and the South African signer both have in common that they went through a very public appearance knowing they were making a tit of themselves because they had no idea what they were doing!

    I
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Given the above , if these LDs think Labour are the best party for the economy, unemployment and education then I suspect they are beyond the reach of the Cons. And all other forms of help.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Anyone else think the South African signer looked a tad like Guy Goma? Maybe he just keeps being thrown into these situations.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    The L/dems are doomed! Doomed! Doomed!
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    "The polls say immigration isn't important, the polls say europe isn't important.." goes the cry

    Yet an anti EU party who take the toughest line on immigration are gaining members by the thousand as the other parties lose them hand over fist, and in English elections in the last year they have over performed in relation to what the polls predicted almost every time...

    Still, what use are hard facts when there is subjective data to analyse?
  • BobajobBobajob Posts: 1,536
    @anotherdave

    Yes, Redwood is forever proving an inconvenient irritation for the Yellow Box Wallah.
  • The sheer terror that must have gone through Redwood's mind as he realised he was about to be expected to sing the Welsh Anthem!!
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited December 2013

    @Avery
    John Redwood's gone off script again:

    " The Office of Budget responsibility now endorses what I have been saying for the last three years. Public spending is rising in real terms as well as cash terms."

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/12/11/its-official-there-is-real-growth-in-uk-public-spending/

    Not really. The March budget was drawn up at a time when the UK pundits were talking "triple dip"; the Krugmanite insurgents in the IMF were demanding a death sentence for austerity; and profligate EU countries were demanding a co-ordinated response by EU countries to growth stimulus (translate into "we are not going to make our deficit reduction targets so let's ignore them").

    George merely smiled beatifically at the panic-struck and whispered a promise of deploying "economic stabilisers" in their ears. As a result the 2013-13 budget reversed the previous trend of a real reduction in government spending and inserted a small increase.

    As it stands at the moment, the budgetted increase has not been met and central government departmental spending is running well below budget. This applies even to social security spending.

    Even after allowing for the underspend, it is still not known whether the year end will end up with real rise or fall in spending. It will be close run. The uncertainties mainly surround the degree to which phasing of local government spending has changed from 2012-13. Last fiscal year transfers from central to local governments were back loaded: this year they have been front loaded, so further spending reductions over and above the known underspend remain probable.

    Chote has taken a conservative view and not included the probability of these additional savings in his December EFO forecasts.

    JohnO may be able to help us by giving further details of the phasing changes in local government financing and an indication of how they will pan out in his council.

    As to John Redwood, his statement is correct but the real question is for how long will it so remain.

  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    isam said:

    "The polls say immigration isn't important, the polls say europe isn't important.." goes the cry

    Yet an anti EU party who take the toughest line on immigration are gaining members by the thousand as the other parties lose them hand over fist, and in English elections in the last year they have over performed in relation to what the polls predicted almost every time...

    Still, what use are hard facts when there is subjective data to analyse?

    You're using those facts fairly subjectively.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    tim said:

    @Avery

    Overly desperate to appear in touch and crowbar a reference to being a father into an interview?
    Stick with #TeamNutella

    tim

    What is Nutella?

    I recognise only Gentleman's Relish.

  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Hmm a bit misleading. It's the Lib Dems that will try and get back the er, Lib Dem voters.

    Here's the same table; number of times more likely to choose Labour over the Lib Dems

    Europe 0.6
    Immigration 0.7
    Law and Order 1.0
    Taxation 1.04
    Economy 1.1
    Education 1.1
    Unemployment 1.6
    NHS 2.3
  • AveryLP said:

    tim said:

    @Avery

    Overly desperate to appear in touch and crowbar a reference to being a father into an interview?
    Stick with #TeamNutella

    tim

    What is Nutella?

    I recognise only Gentleman's Relish.
    Nutella is God's own condiment of choice.

  • AveryLP said:

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

    Accuracy is more useful than precision in forecasting.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    corporeal said:

    isam said:

    "The polls say immigration isn't important, the polls say europe isn't important.." goes the cry

    Yet an anti EU party who take the toughest line on immigration are gaining members by the thousand as the other parties lose them hand over fist, and in English elections in the last year they have over performed in relation to what the polls predicted almost every time...

    Still, what use are hard facts when there is subjective data to analyse?

    You're using those facts fairly subjectively.
    Go on?

    I am pointing out that an anti EU party that is big on cutting immigration has become more popular than ever in terms that can be stated as a matter of fact

    How could anyone argue differently?
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    AveryLP said:

    @Avery
    John Redwood's gone off script again:

    " The Office of Budget responsibility now endorses what I have been saying for the last three years. Public spending is rising in real terms as well as cash terms."

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/12/11/its-official-there-is-real-growth-in-uk-public-spending/



    JohnO may be able to help us by giving further details of the phasing changes in local government financing and an indication of how they will pan out in his council.

    We're on tenterhooks until next week (we think) when next year's funding settlement will be announced. We're anticipating around a 4% cut from last year and have built that into our 2014-5 budget projections. Anything more would be irritating. Of course, at present, we are happy bunnies because of the U turn on the New Homes Bonus.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:

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

    Accuracy is more useful than precision in forecasting.
    I am still trying to restrain myself from responding to your comment on Nutella.

    What I had in mind might have been described as accurate but not nice.

  • 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...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Millsy said:

    Hmm a bit misleading. It's the Lib Dems that will try and get back the er, Lib Dem voters.

    Here's the same table; number of times more likely to choose Labour over the Lib Dems

    Europe 0.6
    Immigration 0.7
    Law and Order 1.0
    Taxation 1.04
    Economy 1.1
    Education 1.1
    Unemployment 1.6
    NHS 2.3

    The LDs will only chase after the LD voters where it matters. In hundreds of constituencirs they will be left because it won't matter. In the seats where it does matter (the 57 they currently hold plus maybe 20 "targets"), the seats will hopefully already be worked and the ground organisation will know how the vote is holding up.

    Even in better times, the LD vote has always been much softer than the core Conservative or Labour vote. That vote needs to be cajoled or persuaded to come out for each and every election - sometimes it's easy, sometimes much harder but the ground campaign between elections is and always has been crucial.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited December 2013
    JohnO said:

    AveryLP said:

    @Avery
    John Redwood's gone off script again:

    " The Office of Budget responsibility now endorses what I have been saying for the last three years. Public spending is rising in real terms as well as cash terms."

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/12/11/its-official-there-is-real-growth-in-uk-public-spending/



    JohnO may be able to help us by giving further details of the phasing changes in local government financing and an indication of how they will pan out in his council.

    We're on tenterhooks until next week (we think) when next year's funding settlement will be announced. We're anticipating around a 4% cut from last year and have built that into our 2014-5 budget projections. Anything more would be irritating. Of course, at present, we are happy bunnies because of the U turn on the New Homes Bonus.

    Thanks for responding John.

    Chote's comments on this issue are very opaque. He seems to be saying that central government grants to local councils were paid up front in 2013-14 rather than 'in arrears' as in 2012-13. This seems to explain the front loading vs. back loading comments.

    But he also implies that it is a more fundamental change whereby central gpvernment grants are being part replaced by allowing local councils to retain a greater share of their own business rates.

    And to complicate things further he refers at times to grants and in other instances to loans.

    I have never really been able to follow the ins and outs of what he is saying.

  • 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.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited December 2013
    Given all the partisan bravado on here, you really would think there would be a lot more bets struck between posters
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    AveryLP said:

    JohnO said:


    We're on tenterhooks until next week (we think) when next year's funding settlement will be announced. We're anticipating around a 4% cut from last year and have built that into our 2014-5 budget projections. Anything more would be irritating. Of course, at present, we are happy bunnies because of the U turn on the New Homes Bonus.

    Thanks for responding John.

    Chote's comments on this issue are very opaque. He seems to be saying that central government grants to local councils were paid up front in 2013-14 rather than 'in arrears' as in 2012-13. This seems to explain the front loading vs. back loading comments.

    But he also implies that it is a more fundamental change whereby central gpvernment grants are being part replaced by allowing local councils to retain a greater share of their own business rates.

    And to complicate things further he refers at times to grants and in other instances to loans.

    I have never really been able to follow the ins and outs of what he is saying.

    If I can add some perspective from my working world, the view I'm getting from the local Government finance officers I'm talking to is that the situation up to 2015 is fairly set and we are, to use an aeronautical analogy, "in a holding pattern" until that time.

    There's concern about 2015-16 and following years irrespective of the result of the election. One senior officer thought 2015-16 would be "horrendous" as the new Government (of whatever stripe) came to realise that the structural nature of the deficit would mean much more severe cuts in public spending than had been carried out under the Coalition.

    I know of at least one Conservative controlled Council which is dipping into the reserves to keep its projected Council Tax spending as low as possible while safeguarding services.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    @NickPalmer: " 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."

    I would have found out more about the background of the speakers at the talk before agreeing to attend. There are some mosques which seem to specialise in hosting speakers that I personally wouldn't want to be seen dead with. Assuming that the place you were invited to wasn't one of those, I would have stated clearly why I disagreed with such separation, why it made me feel uneasy and why I thought the thinking behind it it incompatible with living in Britain. I would have been polite but firm. There is little point speaking to groups with whom one has disagreements on certain topics and then shying away from the argument.

    Incidentally, it is more than "seeing the point about not letting speakers impose restrictions".

    It's about - in this week of all weeks, for God's sake - not putting up with those, such as the ineffably stupid woman from the universities on the Today programme this morning, seeking to justify "separate but equal" seating in Britain - in 2013 - at a university.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    isam said:

    Given all the partisan bravado on here, you really would think there would be a lot more bets struck between posters

    Indeed, and given all the money people apparently bet on their predictions you'd think they'd be much less partisan and more objective about it.
  • Bob__SykesBob__Sykes Posts: 1,179
    Doesn't the fact that in by elections, the LDs seem to have held on to their 2010 vote, whatever the polls might be saying, suggest that the supposed "Labour switchers" will vote LD again?

    Even if a chunk of them do switch to Labour, won't that also mean Tories capture LD/Tory marginals from the LDs?

    And what about the nonsensical 10-13% that UKIP is getting in the polls that won't translate into real votes in 2015? Surely most of them are Tories really.

    Can't help thinking that without Farage and without Lib Dem fibbers, the Tories would be in the lead in the polls currently. Red Ed's lead is pathetic in the circumstances, he should be 15 points clear if he was cutting it as a prospective PM.

    I do think a Tory majority is a slim prospect, but Unelectable Ed could prove to be the Tories' biggest asset in 2015. Nobody wants him as PM, not even his own party.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "... the Romanian parliament has this week exempted top politicians and lawyers from corruption crimes."

    http://ukip.org/newsroom/news/1078-romanians-flout-eu-agreement-now-is-the-chance-of-the-uk-to-act
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    In Westminster by-elections the LDs have held up OK in Con-facing seats but collapsed almost entirely in Labour-facing seats. If that pattern is replicated in 2015 it will help Labour enormously.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Doesn't the fact that in by elections, the LDs seem to have held on to their 2010 vote, whatever the polls might be saying, suggest that the supposed "Labour switchers" will vote LD again?

    Even if a chunk of them do switch to Labour, won't that also mean Tories capture LD/Tory marginals from the LDs?

    And what about the nonsensical 10-13% that UKIP is getting in the polls that won't translate into real votes in 2015? Surely most of them are Tories really.

    Can't help thinking that without Farage and without Lib Dem fibbers, the Tories would be in the lead in the polls currently. Red Ed's lead is pathetic in the circumstances, he should be 15 points clear if he was cutting it as a prospective PM.

    I do think a Tory majority is a slim prospect, but Unelectable Ed could prove to be the Tories' biggest asset in 2015. Nobody wants him as PM, not even his own party.

    What percentage of the vote did UKIP get in...

    Eastleigh?
    South Shields?
    Rotherham?
    Corby?
    Middlesbrough?

    I suppose you could say that only one of them managed to make it into the nonsensical 10-13% bracket
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Quincel said:

    In Westminster by-elections the LDs have held up OK in Con-facing seats but collapsed almost entirely in Labour-facing seats. If that pattern is replicated in 2015 it will help Labour enormously.

    What is "held up OK"?

    In Eastleigh LDs fell from 47% > 32%
    In Corby LDs fell from 14% > 5%

  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Just to say that, as a lefty, I wholly agree with the following elegant statement on the last thread by Cyclefree:

    "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."
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042

    Quincel said:

    In Westminster by-elections the LDs have held up OK in Con-facing seats but collapsed almost entirely in Labour-facing seats. If that pattern is replicated in 2015 it will help Labour enormously.

    What is "held up OK"?

    In Eastleigh LDs fell from 47% > 32%
    In Corby LDs fell from 14% > 5%

    OK, perhaps 'Held up better' would have been more accurate but my point is that there record in Labour areas has been truly shocking:

    South Shields - 14% to 1.4%
    Croydon North - 14% to 3.5%
    Middlesbrough - 20% to 10%
    Rotherham - 16% to 2%
    Cardiff South - 22% to 11%
    Manchester Central - 26% to 17%

    Hmm, on second thought maybe the key factor is their share of the vote. When they have 20% or more they lost 33-50% of it, when they are lower they lose 90%+.
  • This is a bit naughty:

    8 okt 2013 - Manchester Central MP Lucy Powell appointed shadow minister for childcare by Labour leader Ed Miliband.

    But here they are calling her: " Labour's Childcare and Children Minister".

    http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Buckinghamshire/Milton-Keynes/MK8/News/Local-News/263858-Labour’s-Early-Years-Minister-To-Quiz-MK-Parents-About-Childcare-Views

    I hope that it was the media outlet making the error and not an official Labour Party press release pretending that she is a government minister.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @NickPalmer: " 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."

    I would have found out more about the background of the speakers at the talk before agreeing to attend. There are some mosques which seem to specialise in hosting speakers that I personally wouldn't want to be seen dead with. Assuming that the place you were invited to wasn't one of those, I would have stated clearly why I disagreed with such separation, why it made me feel uneasy and why I thought the thinking behind it it incompatible with living in Britain. I would have been polite but firm. There is little point speaking to groups with whom one has disagreements on certain topics and then shying away from the argument.

    Incidentally, it is more than "seeing the point about not letting speakers impose restrictions".

    It's about - in this week of all weeks, for God's sake - not putting up with those, such as the ineffably stupid woman from the universities on the Today programme this morning, seeking to justify "separate but equal" seating in Britain - in 2013 - at a university.

    This is the best article on University segregation i have read, and it's from a Muslim woman.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/segregating-men-and-women-at-university-events-wont-lead-to-equality-8962984.html

    Allowing Islamists to get away with this hideous crap reinforces the misogynistic tendencies in Islam, and does Muslim women, struggling against this misogyny, from a position of great vulnerability - no favours whatsoever.

    How can a drunken, whoremongering old roue like me see this quite clearly, for what it is, yet handwringing bedwetting liberals do not? Or, rather, will not?

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.
    Fear of the violence that might be unleashed is at least one of the reasons why people - both on the left and the right - are unwilling to challenge this. And that is how fascists (because Islamists are just fascists in quasi-religious clothing) operate. The threat of violence is never far away.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.

    It merely shows how deep and broad is the left's hatred of western capitalist society.

    Anybody, or anything, ranged against the West is forgiven its sins - and particularly anything ranged against the middle class white west.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    @Toms: Thank you.

    On this I like to think of myself as part of the decent liberal left, as exemplified by George Orwell. We need someone like him now, I feel.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Quincel said:

    Quincel said:

    In Westminster by-elections the LDs have held up OK in Con-facing seats but collapsed almost entirely in Labour-facing seats. If that pattern is replicated in 2015 it will help Labour enormously.

    What is "held up OK"?

    In Eastleigh LDs fell from 47% > 32%
    In Corby LDs fell from 14% > 5%

    OK, perhaps 'Held up better' would have been more accurate but my point is that there record in Labour areas has been truly shocking:

    South Shields - 14% to 1.4%
    Croydon North - 14% to 3.5%
    Middlesbrough - 20% to 10%
    Rotherham - 16% to 2%
    Cardiff South - 22% to 11%
    Manchester Central - 26% to 17%

    Hmm, on second thought maybe the key factor is their share of the vote. When they have 20% or more they lost 33-50% of it, when they are lower they lose 90%+.
    The local election results show the LDs having lost ~10% of the vote.

    2006: 25%, 2011: 15%
    2007: 26%, 2012: 16%
    2008: 25%, 2013: 14%

    The by-elections show the same picture, perhaps a touch more.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Cyclefree said:

    @Toms: Thank you.

    On this I like to think of myself as part of the decent liberal left, as exemplified by George Orwell. We need someone like him now, I feel.

    Yes, Orwell would be good. I wonder what Simon Jenkins has, or would have, to say.
  • @Toms: _”Just to say that, as a lefty, I wholly agree with the following elegant statement on the last thread by Cyclefree.”

    Heartily agree – it was as elegant as it was profound, a great post by Cyclefree.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471
    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @NickPalmer: " 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."

    I would have found out more about the background of the speakers at the talk before agreeing to attend. There are some mosques which seem to specialise in hosting speakers that I personally wouldn't want to be seen dead with. Assuming that the place you were invited to wasn't one of those, I would have stated clearly why I disagreed with such separation, why it made me feel uneasy and why I thought the thinking behind it it incompatible with living in Britain. I would have been polite but firm. There is little point speaking to groups with whom one has disagreements on certain topics and then shying away from the argument.

    Incidentally, it is more than "seeing the point about not letting speakers impose restrictions".

    It's about - in this week of all weeks, for God's sake - not putting up with those, such as the ineffably stupid woman from the universities on the Today programme this morning, seeking to justify "separate but equal" seating in Britain - in 2013 - at a university.

    This is the best article on University segregation i have read, and it's from a Muslim woman.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/segregating-men-and-women-at-university-events-wont-lead-to-equality-8962984.html

    Allowing Islamists to get away with this hideous crap reinforces the misogynistic tendencies in Islam, and does Muslim women, struggling against this misogyny, from a position of great vulnerability - no favours whatsoever.

    How can a drunken, whoremongering old roue like me see this quite clearly, for what it is, yet handwringing bedwetting liberals do not? Or, rather, will not?

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.
    Fear of the violence that might be unleashed is at least one of the reasons why people - both on the left and the right - are unwilling to challenge this. And that is how fascists (because Islamists are just fascists in quasi-religious clothing) operate. The threat of violence is never far away.

    I'll freely challenge it. It's cr@p and should not be allowed. Funding to any further education body which allows in-class segregation should be stopped, unless there is a very good, non-religious reason (and I find it hard to think of one off the top of my head, although people will undoubtedly come up with many immediately).

    However Tim is right - although mischievous - to point out that there are other parts of the education system that split up boys and girls.

    It is part of a trend - Iran has taken some very serious steps towards total segregation in FE, and it was not as if they were the most liberated society to begin with. Other countries such as Turkey are starting to make (in my view) worrying noises about this.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    stodge said:

    AveryLP said:

    JohnO said:


    We're on tenterhooks until next week (we think) when next year's funding settlement will be announced. We're anticipating around a 4% cut from last year and have built that into our 2014-5 budget projections. Anything more would be irritating. Of course, at present, we are happy bunnies because of the U turn on the New Homes Bonus.

    Thanks for responding John.

    Chote's comments on this issue are very opaque. He seems to be saying that central government grants to local councils were paid up front in 2013-14 rather than 'in arrears' as in 2012-13. This seems to explain the front loading vs. back loading comments.

    But he also implies that it is a more fundamental change whereby central gpvernment grants are being part replaced by allowing local councils to retain a greater share of their own business rates.

    And to complicate things further he refers at times to grants and in other instances to loans.

    I have never really been able to follow the ins and outs of what he is saying.

    If I can add some perspective from my working world, the view I'm getting from the local Government finance officers I'm talking to is that the situation up to 2015 is fairly set and we are, to use an aeronautical analogy, "in a holding pattern" until that time.

    There's concern about 2015-16 and following years irrespective of the result of the election. One senior officer thought 2015-16 would be "horrendous" as the new Government (of whatever stripe) came to realise that the structural nature of the deficit would mean much more severe cuts in public spending than had been carried out under the Coalition.

    I know of at least one Conservative controlled Council which is dipping into the reserves to keep its projected Council Tax spending as low as possible while safeguarding services.
    Stodge

    The opacity is more about the change between F/Y 2012-13 and 2013-14 than about forward funding.

    The point Chote is making is that at half way point in this financial year the spending outcome and spending forecast appear aligned, but that this may be misleading. In 2012-13 he claims the weight of transfers between central and local government took place in the second half whereas in 2013-14 the equivalent transfers took place in the first half. Chote appears to be saying that, if this phasing mismatch is true, then we should expect second half spending to be lower.

    But he then goes on to talk about changes in funding methodology (less CG funding and more self-funding from rates) and the uncertainly in local government borrowing levels due to the grant phasing and methodology changes

    I was fishing for someone on PB to explain what Chote means.

    On forward funding you are absolutely right about the 'need' for more cuts in current expenditure.if the next government is to meet the 2018-19 forecast of a balanced budget and zero deficit. I quoted various paragraphs from the OBR's EFO in a post a few days ago (the one about the largest sustained reduction in real terms spending of any advanced economy since the 1940s). The taxes have been put up but only a small(ish) proportion of the matching cuts have yet been made.

    Of course, the longer you leave the cuts the shallower the cuts need t be (provided growth is maintained) but the blood still needs to run. It will be interesting to see how OBR 'route to zero' plans play out in the election campaign.


  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @NickPalmer: " 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."

    I would have found out more about the background of the speakers at the talk before agreeing to attend. There are some mosques which seem to specialise in hosting speakers that I personally wouldn't want to be seen dead with. Assuming that the place you were invited to wasn't one of those, I would have stated clearly why I disagreed with such separation, why it made me feel uneasy and why I thought the thinking behind it it incompatible with living in Britain. I would have been polite but firm. There is little point speaking to groups with whom one has disagreements on certain topics and then shying away from the argument.

    Incidentally, it is more than "seeing the point about not letting speakers impose restrictions".

    It's about - in this week of all weeks, for God's sake - not putting up with those, such as the ineffably stupid woman from the universities on the Today programme this morning, seeking to justify "separate but equal" seating in Britain - in 2013 - at a university.

    This is the best article on University segregation i have read, and it's from a Muslim woman.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/segregating-men-and-women-at-university-events-wont-lead-to-equality-8962984.html

    Allowing Islamists to get away with this hideous crap reinforces the misogynistic tendencies in Islam, and does Muslim women, struggling against this misogyny, from a position of great vulnerability - no favours whatsoever.

    How can a drunken, whoremongering old roue like me see this quite clearly, for what it is, yet handwringing bedwetting liberals do not? Or, rather, will not?

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.
    Fear of the violence that might be unleashed is at least one of the reasons why people - both on the left and the right - are unwilling to challenge this. And that is how fascists (because Islamists are just fascists in quasi-religious clothing) operate. The threat of violence is never far away.

    In other words: cowardice.
    Yes - as I first said a couple of days ago, both intellectual and physical cowardice. It is utterly shameful that this is happening in our universities.

    And equally shameful that our politicians, so quick to come out with the tritest of utterances on matters of the utmost banality, are silent on such an important issue.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471
    tim said:

    At last the penny is dropping

    @dlknowles: Amazing stat: even after the world's biggest property-price crash, Spain still built more homes last year than England.

    @dlknowles: Those Spanish house-building stats support my other solution to our housing crisis: a subsidy for pensioners to move to Spain.

    5 million UKIP/Tory SE NIMBYs out, 5 million hardworking immigrants in.

    Tell me, how many houses did Labour build whilst the economy was booming?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    Toms said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @Toms: Thank you.

    On this I like to think of myself as part of the decent liberal left, as exemplified by George Orwell. We need someone like him now, I feel.

    Yes, Orwell would be good. I wonder what Simon Jenkins has, or would have, to say.
    Simon Jenkins is too unreliable a commentator. Christopher Hitchens would have had something to say on the topic. He saw through to the real issues on matters such as this.

    But those of us who feel strongly on this need to say our piece, wherever we can, and not just leave it to Muslim women. This is not an issue for Muslims. Or for Muslim women. Or women. It's an issue for all of us.

  • It seems the faker signer sees angels every time he works for the ANC..the Telegraph have dug up a load more footage with some LOL moments, where he even changes signs for the same word / phases 10 seconds have he has first signed them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHF20okcv58
  • taffys said:

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.

    It merely shows how deep and broad is the left's hatred of western capitalist society.

    Anybody, or anything, ranged against the West is forgiven its sins - and particularly anything ranged against the middle class white west.

    Never one to over generalise and group a whole section of society together....err.. Thatcherites eat babies!
  • taffys said:

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.

    It merely shows how deep and broad is the left's hatred of western capitalist society.

    Anybody, or anything, ranged against the West is forgiven its sins - and particularly anything ranged against the middle class white west.

    What is the "left"?

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @NickPalmer: " 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."

    I would have found out more about the background of the speakers at the talk before agreeing to attend. There are some mosques which seem to specialise in hosting speakers that I personally wouldn't want to be seen dead with. Assuming that the place you were invited to wasn't one of those, I would have stated clearly why I disagreed with such separation, why it made me feel uneasy and why I thought the thinking behind it it incompatible with living in Britain. I would have been polite but firm. There is little point speaking to groups with whom one has disagreements on certain topics and then shying away from the argument.

    Incidentally, it is more than "seeing the point about not letting speakers impose restrictions".

    It's about - in this week of all weeks, for God's sake - not putting up with those, such as the ineffably stupid woman from the universities on the Today programme this morning, seeking to justify "separate but equal" seating in Britain - in 2013 - at a university.

    This is the best article on University segregation i have read, and it's from a Muslim woman.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/segregating-men-and-women-at-university-events-wont-lead-to-equality-8962984.html

    Allowing Islamists to get away with this hideous crap reinforces the misogynistic tendencies in Islam, and does Muslim women, struggling against this misogyny, from a position of great vulnerability - no favours whatsoever.

    How can a drunken, whoremongering old roue like me see this quite clearly, for what it is, yet handwringing bedwetting liberals do not? Or, rather, will not?

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.
    Fear of the violence that might be unleashed is at least one of the reasons why people - both on the left and the right - are unwilling to challenge this. And that is how fascists (because Islamists are just fascists in quasi-religious clothing) operate. The threat of violence is never far away.

    I'll freely challenge it. It's cr@p and should not be allowed. Funding to any further education body which allows in-class segregation should be stopped, unless there is a very good, non-religious reason (and I find it hard to think of one off the top of my head, although people will undoubtedly come up with many immediately).

    However Tim is right - although mischievous - to point out that there are other parts of the education system that split up boys and girls.

    It is part of a trend - Iran has taken some very serious steps towards total segregation in FE, and it was not as if they were the most liberated society to begin with. Other countries such as Turkey are starting to make (in my view) worrying noises about this.
    I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. I don't care if the speaker's religion requires it.



  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Pulpstar said:

    Betting Post
    ____________

    If you think Guido's revelations affect Khan's mayoral chances (I don't) .

    Guido's "quote of the day"

    Earlsfield resident Olivia Seccombe writing to the Wandsworth Guardian:

    “I would like to question the judgement of Tooting’s Member of Parliament, Sadiq Khan, now Babar Ahmad has been found guilty of running websites that allegedly sought to raise money, recruit fighters and seek equipment for terrorists in Afghanistan and Chechnya… Now this man has been found guilty – after a full and fair trial in the States – I would like Mr Khan to answer firstly, what his concerns with the legal process were and secondly, why he spent so much time campaigning for this man when he should have been representing Tooting in Parliament?”
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    @Quincel
    The seats where the LDs dropped more than 10% of the vote, seem to be the ones where UKIP surged.

    Eastleigh 15%
    Rotherham 14%
    South Shields 12%
  • tim said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @NickPalmer: " 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."

    I would have found out more about the background of the speakers at the talk before agreeing to attend. There are some mosques which seem to specialise in hosting speakers that I personally wouldn't want to be seen dead with. Assuming that the place you were invited to wasn't one of those, I would have stated clearly why I disagreed with such separation, why it made me feel uneasy and why I thought the thinking behind it it incompatible with living in Britain. I would have been polite but firm. There is little point speaking to groups with whom one has disagreements on certain topics and then shying away from the argument.

    Incidentally, it is more than "seeing the point about not letting speakers impose restrictions".

    It's about - in this week of all weeks, for God's sake - not putting up with those, such as the ineffably stupid woman from the universities on the Today programme this morning, seeking to justify "separate but equal" seating in Britain - in 2013 - at a university.

    This is the best article on University segregation i have read, and it's from a Muslim woman.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/segregating-men-and-women-at-university-events-wont-lead-to-equality-8962984.html

    Allowing Islamists to get away with this hideous crap reinforces the misogynistic tendencies in Islam, and does Muslim women, struggling against this misogyny, from a position of great vulnerability - no favours whatsoever.

    How can a drunken, whoremongering old roue like me see this quite clearly, for what it is, yet handwringing bedwetting liberals do not? Or, rather, will not?

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.
    Fear of the violence that might be unleashed is at least one of the reasons why people - both on the left and the right - are unwilling to challenge this. And that is how fascists (because Islamists are just fascists in quasi-religious clothing) operate. The threat of violence is never far away.

    I'll freely challenge it. It's cr@p and should not be allowed. Funding to any further education body which allows in-class segregation should be stopped, unless there is a very good, non-religious reason (and I find it hard to think of one off the top of my head, although people will undoubtedly come up with many immediately).

    However Tim is right - although mischievous - to point out that there are other parts of the education system that split up boys and girls.

    It is part of a trend - Iran has taken some very serious steps towards total segregation in FE, and it was not as if they were the most liberated society to begin with. Other countries such as Turkey are starting to make (in my view) worrying noises about this.
    I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. I don't care if the speaker's religion requires it.



    And stop funding for any sixth forms that segregate?
    tim, you're supposed to be a lefty. Why are you so in favour of segregation in FE?
  • taffys said:

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.

    It merely shows how deep and broad is the left's hatred of western capitalist society.

    Anybody, or anything, ranged against the West is forgiven its sins - and particularly anything ranged against the middle class white west.

    What is the "left"?

    North Korea
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited December 2013

    tim said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    SeanT said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @NickPalmer: " 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."

    Incidentally, it is more than "seeing the point about not letting speakers impose restrictions".

    It's about - in this week of all weeks, for God's sake - not putting up with those, such as the ineffably stupid woman from the universities on the Today programme this morning, seeking to justify "separate but equal" seating in Britain - in 2013 - at a university.

    This is the best article on University segregation i have read, and it's from a Muslim woman.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/segregating-men-and-women-at-university-events-wont-lead-to-equality-8962984.html

    Allowing Islamists to get away with this hideous crap reinforces the misogynistic tendencies in Islam, and does Muslim women, struggling against this misogyny, from a position of great vulnerability - no favours whatsoever.

    How can a drunken, whoremongering old roue like me see this quite clearly, for what it is, yet handwringing bedwetting liberals do not? Or, rather, will not?

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.
    Fear of the violence that might be unleashed is at least one of the reasons why people - both on the left and the right - are unwilling to challenge this. And that is how fascists (because Islamists are just fascists in quasi-religious clothing) operate. The threat of violence is never far away.

    I'll freely challenge it. It's cr@p and should not be allowed. Funding to any further education body which allows in-class segregation should be stopped, unless there is a very good, non-religious reason (and I find it hard to think of one off the top of my head, although people will undoubtedly come up with many immediately).

    However Tim is right - although mischievous - to point out that there are other parts of the education system that split up boys and girls.

    It is part of a trend - Iran has taken some very serious steps towards total segregation in FE, and it was not as if they were the most liberated society to begin with. Other countries such as Turkey are starting to make (in my view) worrying noises about this.
    I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. I don't care if the speaker's religion requires it.



    And stop funding for any sixth forms that segregate?
    tim, you're supposed to be a lefty. Why are you so in favour of segregation in FE?
    Because Muslims do it, and tim thinks it helps relations between parts of society where there is friction to defend one at any cost while criticizing the other.

    Bombs, beheadings, groomings...

    No criticism

    Balding man has combover, drinks frothy Guinness, eats pasty...

    You know the rest
  • Completely OT but just to satisfy my curiosity. There is a twitter message going round claiming that IDS had armed guards around him when he gave evidence to the Work and Pensions committee the other day. The claim is also made that they were pointing their weapons at some of the disabled public who had come to watch proceedings.

    Given that this is only appearing on social media and no mention at all has been made in any mainstream source I was just wondering if it is simply a smear or if there is any truth in it?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited December 2013
    "And stop funding for any sixth forms that segregate?"

    If they're comfortable with educating female students to behave like this in 2013, then yes.

    ''it was very noticeable that the girls were silent and deferential, and when I directly asked them things they looked embarrassed and shy.''

    (From Nick Palmer's post, previous thread).
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    @Quincel
    A blanket loss of 10% would seem to cap potential LD losses @ 27.

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/libdemdefence/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    edited December 2013
    @Tim:

    As I said before, I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. If a sixth form college does the same thing at the behest of a speaker, then the same applies. I've not heard of any sixth form doing this.

    We do know that British universities are the ones which have come up with this absurdly illiberal policy and the priority should be to reverse it pdq.

  • taffys said:

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.

    It merely shows how deep and broad is the left's hatred of western capitalist society.

    Anybody, or anything, ranged against the West is forgiven its sins - and particularly anything ranged against the middle class white west.

    What is the "left"?

    Still yet to get an answer I see, but they hate western capitalist society.
  • Cyclefree said:

    @Tim:

    As I said before, I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. If a sixth form college does the same thing at the behest of a speaker, then the same applies. I've not heard of any sixth form doing this.

    We do know that British universities are the ones which have come up with this absurdly illiberal policy and the priority should be to reverse it pdq.

    Sounds reasonable to me; but at whose behest is it reasonable to segregate people based on sex, religion etc?

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    taffys said:

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.

    It merely shows how deep and broad is the left's hatred of western capitalist society.

    Anybody, or anything, ranged against the West is forgiven its sins - and particularly anything ranged against the middle class white west.

    What is the "left"?

    SO - there is a decent liberal left. And I rather think you are part of it.

    The right have not, frankly, been much better at challenging this sort of pernicious nonsense.

    This is not, primarily, a right-left issue but a liberal / illiberal issue. The trouble is that there are too many people of the left - not, by any means, all - who think of themselves as liberal but who, when it comes to it, are wholly unwilling to fight for liberalism's values or who come up with some amazingly illiberal views and policies.

  • taffys said:

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.

    It merely shows how deep and broad is the left's hatred of western capitalist society.

    Anybody, or anything, ranged against the West is forgiven its sins - and particularly anything ranged against the middle class white west.

    What is the "left"?

    Still yet to get an answer I see, but they hate western capitalist society.

    And the white middle class.

    But I am off the hook, at least. I'm a company director who loves his white kids and wife, and is very fond of his white mates. Phew!

  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    @Quincel
    The seats where the LDs dropped more than 10% of the vote, seem to be the ones where UKIP surged.

    Eastleigh 15%
    Rotherham 14%
    South Shields 12%

    You are ignoring the fall in the Conservative vote in these by elections and also the much lower turnout compared to the GE in 2010 . In Middlesbrough and Manchester Central and Leicester South and Eastleigh . the Conservative vote share fell more than the Lib Dems
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @AveryLP wrote :

    "What is Nutella?"

    I think you mean who is Nutella ?

    I believe it to be a derogatory nickname for the fragrant Nuala - late of this parish.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    tim said:

    "And stop funding for any sixth forms that segregate?"

    If they're comfortable with educating female students to behave like this in 2013, then yes.

    ''it was very noticeable that the girls were silent and deferential, and when I directly asked them things they looked embarrassed and shy.''

    (From Nick Palmer's post, previous thread).


    Go back and read the post and see what a fool you are
    I know full where where Nick Palmer was, and it wasn't a college.

    What's your point?
  • Cyclefree said:

    taffys said:

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.

    It merely shows how deep and broad is the left's hatred of western capitalist society.

    Anybody, or anything, ranged against the West is forgiven its sins - and particularly anything ranged against the middle class white west.

    What is the "left"?

    SO - there is a decent liberal left. And I rather think you are part of it.

    The right have not, frankly, been much better at challenging this sort of pernicious nonsense.

    This is not, primarily, a right-left issue but a liberal / illiberal issue. The trouble is that there are too many people of the left - not, by any means, all - who think of themselves as liberal but who, when it comes to it, are wholly unwilling to fight for liberalism's values or who come up with some amazingly illiberal views and policies.

    Yes, the Livingstone/Galloway left. Tossers one and all. But as you say, it's not as if the right has shown itself to be overly concerned about these things either.

  • taffys said:

    As I said it is a kind of disease. The Left is sick.

    It merely shows how deep and broad is the left's hatred of western capitalist society.

    Anybody, or anything, ranged against the West is forgiven its sins - and particularly anything ranged against the middle class white west.

    What is the "left"?

    Still yet to get an answer I see, but they hate western capitalist society.

    And the white middle class.

    But I am off the hook, at least. I'm a company director who loves his white kids and wife, and is very fond of his white mates. Phew!

    Looks like Cameron and Gideon are not under threat from the left, them not being in the middle class.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326

    Cyclefree said:

    @Tim:

    As I said before, I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. If a sixth form college does the same thing at the behest of a speaker, then the same applies. I've not heard of any sixth form doing this.

    We do know that British universities are the ones which have come up with this absurdly illiberal policy and the priority should be to reverse it pdq.

    Sounds reasonable to me; but at whose behest is it reasonable to segregate people based on sex, religion etc?

    I don't think there should be segregation at a university. I could see an argument that if, say, there was a group for victims of rape, that group might want to limit attendance to women and not men. But that is very different from having a lecture by X and X saying that the audience must consist of these people, sitting here, dressed like this etc etc and having that enforced by university authorities so that - even though in theory all are invited and treated equally (they can all sit), in practice we have a policy of "separate but equal".

    I really cannot believe that we are arguing about why "separate but equal" is not acceptable in this day and age in our society, whatever backward views they may have in Iran or elsewhere.

    Anyway, having rather hijacked this thread I'm off to do Xmassy things i.e. decorate the tree.

  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    edited December 2013

    Completely OT but just to satisfy my curiosity. There is a twitter message going round claiming that IDS had armed guards around him when he gave evidence to the Work and Pensions committee the other day. The claim is also made that they were pointing their weapons at some of the disabled public who had come to watch proceedings.

    Given that this is only appearing on social media and no mention at all has been made in any mainstream source I was just wondering if it is simply a smear or if there is any truth in it?

    I have no idea if this is true but there are certainly a ridiculously large number of armed guards around Westminster and Whitehall (and party conferences) generally. Serves only to increase the sense of politicians as a race apart from us ordinary mortals. And why is it deemed necessary? Security at similarly sensitive locations (Buckingham Palace for example) is far less obtrusive.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Earlsfield resident Olivia Seccombe writing to the Wandsworth Guardian:

    Actually that letter is not strictly correct. The defendant was not found guilty, he has actually copped a plea, not quite the same thing.

    Even so, does this affect the outlook on 'Kahn for Mayor...?'
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    tim said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @Tim:

    As I said before, I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. If a sixth form college does the same thing at the behest of a speaker, then the same applies. I've not heard of any sixth form doing this.

    We do know that British universities are the ones which have come up with this absurdly illiberal policy and the priority should be to reverse it pdq.

    So you're happy to fund single sex religious sixth forms in Catholic, CoE, Jewish and Muslim schools?

    one is for children one is for adults. The reality is the only reason this is being tolerated is because of those demanding it.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    @Quincel
    The seats where the LDs dropped more than 10% of the vote, seem to be the ones where UKIP surged.

    Eastleigh 15%
    Rotherham 14%
    South Shields 12%

    You are ignoring the fall in the Conservative vote in these by elections and also the much lower turnout compared to the GE in 2010 . In Middlesbrough and Manchester Central and Leicester South and Eastleigh . the Conservative vote share fell more than the Lib Dems
    The Conservative vote isn't the topic.

    At the election the relative fall in the Con vote / UKIP surge will clearly be the key factor for the LDs.

  • This is a bit naughty:

    8 okt 2013 - Manchester Central MP Lucy Powell appointed shadow minister for childcare by Labour leader Ed Miliband.

    But here they are calling her: " Labour's Childcare and Children Minister".

    http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/Buckinghamshire/Milton-Keynes/MK8/News/Local-News/263858-Labour’s-Early-Years-Minister-To-Quiz-MK-Parents-About-Childcare-Views

    I hope that it was the media outlet making the error and not an official Labour Party press release pretending that she is a government minister.

    It is an official Labour press release:

    http://www.labour-southeast.org.uk/early_years_shadow_minister_launches_mk_childcare_survey

    The headline refers to her as "Shadow Minister", but the text calls her a "Minister". That is a really crass error.

  • Just had it confirmed that we'll get the December Ipsos-MORI poll tomorrow. Last time it was 32/38/8/8
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited December 2013
    JackW said:

    @AveryLP wrote :

    "What is Nutella?"

    I think you mean who is Nutella ?

    I believe it to be a derogatory nickname for the fragrant Nuala - late of this parish.

    On inverstigation I discovered that Nuala was actually a man.

  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    tim said:

    notme said:

    tim said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @Tim:

    As I said before, I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. If a sixth form college does the same thing at the behest of a speaker, then the same applies. I've not heard of any sixth form doing this.

    We do know that British universities are the ones which have come up with this absurdly illiberal policy and the priority should be to reverse it pdq.

    So you're happy to fund single sex religious sixth forms in Catholic, CoE, Jewish and Muslim schools?

    one is for children one is for adults. The reality is the only reason this is being tolerated is because of those demanding it.
    As the other half of Sean's Breivik night double act forgive me if I don't take you too seriously on this issue.
    You can argue for secularism as I do or argue that segregation of eighteen year olds in sixth forms is somehow legitimate because of the history of religious schooling, but you can't argue that an 18 year old in a sixth form college is a child but an 18 year old in a university is an adult.
    Yes, one is at school, under their parental supervision, one is at university as an individual. Yes, they are right.

    Still bleating about how Osborne is cutting public spending too much?

    lol
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    tim said:

    notme said:

    tim said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @Tim:

    As I said before, I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. If a sixth form college does the same thing at the behest of a speaker, then the same applies. I've not heard of any sixth form doing this.

    We do know that British universities are the ones which have come up with this absurdly illiberal policy and the priority should be to reverse it pdq.

    So you're happy to fund single sex religious sixth forms in Catholic, CoE, Jewish and Muslim schools?

    one is for children one is for adults. The reality is the only reason this is being tolerated is because of those demanding it.
    As the other half of Sean's Breivik night double act forgive me if I don't take you too seriously on this issue.
    You can argue for secularism as I do or argue that segregation of eighteen year olds in sixth forms is somehow legitimate because of the history of religious schooling, but you can't argue that an 18 year old in a sixth form college is a child but an 18 year old in a university is an adult.
    Yes you can
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    @AveryLP wrote :

    "What is Nutella?"

    I think you mean who is Nutella ?

    I believe it to be a derogatory nickname for the fragrant Nuala - late of this parish.

    On inverstigation I discovered that Nuala was actually a man.

    "On inverstigation" .... Titters

    Mike - What exactly constitutes a PB sex investigation ? .... we should be told .... only in the interests of transparency of course !!

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    edited December 2013
    The Catalan government has reached agreement with other nationalist and republican parties in Catalonia for a referendum on independence to be held next November. There will be two questions:
    "Do you want Catalonia to be a state?"
    "Do you want it to be an independent state?"
    This agreement was reached after a lot of bickering. Apparently you only get to answer the second question if your answer to the first one is Yes. As you can see this is potentially pretty confusing, which is what happens when a lot of people with different ideas have to be satisfied.
    That said, under the Spanish constitution only the central government can call a referendum and the central government is not going to do that, as it made clear again today. The majority of people in Catalonia, though, want one. Cue further stand-offs and general nastiness.
    Both sides are playing this horribly and as I have said before on here it is going to get deeply unpleasant at some stage - I can see people getting killed. Ironically, if the central government - which is run by the Spanish nationalist PP - were to agree that Catalonia could get the deal the Basques have most Catalans would probably be happy enough - though the longer they just get No from Madrid the more radicalised they will become.
    The atmosphere in Barcelona last time I was there was awful. It is not the place it was; the joy and the openness has gone. Catalan nationalists, like Spanish ones, are profoundly intolerant and dismissive of those who do not share their views.
    The best hope for a resolution is for a change of government in Madrid. That is a couple of years off at least though and is far from guaranteed. I dread to think what might end up happening in the meantime.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    tim said:

    After his selfie and his TeamNigella stuff can someone,Avery, Charles perhaps, explain just what poise £30k a year was supposed to buy Dave.
    Can his mum get a refund?

    There aren't too many parents who might say one of their children became the Prime Minister. £30k seems a bargain.

    In contrast I can't help feeling the money poured into your education went straight down the dunny and frankly the taxpayer is due a bloody great refund.



  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    @Nat_Numeracy "Depressing stat for you @WendyJonesSJ pic.twitter.com/ocC4Ez2dIP" From an IPSOS Mori poll.
  • It's curious that tim doesn't seem to be exercised by the photographic antics of Mrs Kinnock (who actually took the selfie) or the President of the United States (who seemed to be lending her a fraternal helping hand, apparently to the disapproval of the First Lady):

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/nelson-mandela-world-leaders-selfie
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    tim said:

    After his selfie and his TeamNigella stuff can someone,Avery, Charles perhaps, explain just what poise £30k a year was supposed to buy Dave.
    Can his mum get a refund?

    What it's got us is a PM who can appear in a photograph with the POTUS looking like a human being and a fellow world leader, rather than an excitable spaniel with a yearning to hump the presidential leg. After Tone's and Gord's fails on this one I'd say it was money well spent.

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited December 2013
    Look where 7 years at Haverstock gets you. Hardly 'world class', and definitely lacking in poise.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/ed-miliband-poses-for-selfie-with-joey-essex-8999590.html

    What would dear old Ralph think? Marx must be spinning in his grave.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Credit where it is due, Dave didnt have to chase Obama into a kitchen!
    Ishmael_X said:

    tim said:

    After his selfie and his TeamNigella stuff can someone,Avery, Charles perhaps, explain just what poise £30k a year was supposed to buy Dave.
    Can his mum get a refund?

    What it's got us is a PM who can appear in a photograph with the POTUS looking like a human being and a fellow world leader, rather than an excitable spaniel with a yearning to hump the presidential leg. After Tone's and Gord's fails on this one I'd say it was money well spent.

  • SouthCoastKevinSouthCoastKevin Posts: 158
    edited December 2013
    Is tim still going on about a photo someone took with his her friends, one of whom happens to be our Prime Minister? Difficult times in partisan left-wing attack land, obviously...
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    tim said:

    notme said:

    tim said:

    notme said:

    tim said:

    Cyclefree said:

    @Tim:

    As I said before, I would stop funding for any university which allows segregation on its premises at the behest of a speaker for any reason whatsoever. If a sixth form college does the same thing at the behest of a speaker, then the same applies. I've not heard of any sixth form doing this.

    We do know that British universities are the ones which have come up with this absurdly illiberal policy and the priority should be to reverse it pdq.

    So you're happy to fund single sex religious sixth forms in Catholic, CoE, Jewish and Muslim schools?

    one is for children one is for adults. The reality is the only reason this is being tolerated is because of those demanding it.
    As the other half of Sean's Breivik night double act forgive me if I don't take you too seriously on this issue.
    You can argue for secularism as I do or argue that segregation of eighteen year olds in sixth forms is somehow legitimate because of the history of religious schooling, but you can't argue that an 18 year old in a sixth form college is a child but an 18 year old in a university is an adult.
    Yes, one is at school, under their parental supervision, one is at university as an individual. Yes, they are right.

    Still bleating about how Osborne is cutting public spending too much?

    lol
    I've been pointing out for years that Osborne was too incompetent to cut spending.
    No you didnt. You repeatedly claimed that the double dip (that never happened) was entirely due to reductions in spending. Every bad piece of economic news was, you claimed due to the Government cutting spending.

    On many occasions I pointed out, that spending was not being reduced. That in fact public expenditure was *increasing*, and that had never been at such a high level.

    Repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly.

    I left the site for some time, and come back, and here you are completely about face claiming that Osborne never cut spending. etc etc etc.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Good laugh for pro Gay anti Racists!

    http://www.sundaysport.com/?p=13660
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    It's curious that tim doesn't seem to be exercised by the photographic antics of Mrs Kinnock (who actually took the selfie) or the President of the United States (who seemed to be lending her a fraternal helping hand, apparently to the disapproval of the First Lady):

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/nelson-mandela-world-leaders-selfie

    Only Mrs Obama comes out of this with dignity and respect. The Danish PM couldn't contain her excitement [ I am choosing my words carefully ] sitting next to O and DC , well, he just is a public school boy, so what do you expect ?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Dave certainly seems to have solved his problem with women, minorities and the leaders of Europe, all in one picture.

    Meanwhile Ed Balls couldn't get a job doing sign language for the ANC.

    surbiton said:

    It's curious that tim doesn't seem to be exercised by the photographic antics of Mrs Kinnock (who actually took the selfie) or the President of the United States (who seemed to be lending her a fraternal helping hand, apparently to the disapproval of the First Lady):

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/nelson-mandela-world-leaders-selfie

    Only Mrs Obama comes out of this with dignity and respect. The Danish PM couldn't contain her excitement [ I am choosing my words carefully ] sitting next to O and DC , well, he just is a public school boy, so what do you expect ?
This discussion has been closed.