'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '
'"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
I don't see how that's a self-own.
You set off down a rabbit hole of dumbness with the idea that the EU is racist (immediately after saying being anti Islam can't be racist), you then burrowed further down with the proposition that France had blocked Turkish accession because of race, and to support that you cited a Graun article that revolved entirely around French suspicion of Turkey's Islamic nature.
Short of shelling out for a cataract operation I don't really know how I can help you see it more clearly.
Define anti-Islam. To me it is just like anti-Semitism:
If you are against people of a Jewish/Muslim ethnicity or background regardless of their own beliefs or characteristics then that is racism.
If you are against specific beliefs of Judaism or Islam because of those beliefs and treat people no differently based on background that is not racism.
So to paraphrase:
EU and France racist cos they're anti Islam. Tory Party not racist cos they're anti Islam.
Glad we cleared that up.
No.
Being against Islamic beliefs - not racism. Being against those of Islamic background rather than treat the individual as an individual - racism.
Just like its OK to criticise Israel and not be anti-Semitic. Its OK to criticise Islam and not be racist.
'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '
'"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
I don't see how that's a self-own.
You set off down a rabbit hole of dumbness with the idea that the EU is racist (immediately after saying being anti Islam can't be racist), you then burrowed further down with the proposition that France had blocked Turkish accession because of race, and to support that you cited a Graun article that revolved entirely around French suspicion of Turkey's Islamic nature.
Short of shelling out for a cataract operation I don't really know how I can help you see it more clearly.
Define anti-Islam. To me it is just like anti-Semitism:
If you are against people of a Jewish/Muslim ethnicity or background regardless of their own beliefs or characteristics then that is racism.
If you are against specific beliefs of Judaism or Islam because of those beliefs and treat people no differently based on background that is not racism.
So to paraphrase:
EU and France racist cos they're anti Islam. Tory Party not racist cos they're anti Islam.
Glad we cleared that up.
No.
Being against Islamic beliefs - not racism. Being against those of Islamic background rather than treat the individual as an individual - racism.
Just like its OK to criticise Israel and not be anti-Semitic. Its OK to criticise Islam and not be racist.
I kind of respect your ability to bang on about the same wrong point for hours.
The Scottish process stages splits the English risk level 3 into two. I think this distinction confusing and unnecessary. The other stages/risk levels appropriate. In general I think the Scottish policy is articulated in a more coherent way than the English equivalent. Readers are treated as a adults.
You can drive 5 miles to play golf in Scotland . But not 6.
Daft.
And you can get there at 30 miles per hour (in a built-up area). But not at 31 mph. Equally so (or not).
For future reference, railing at the seemingly perverse nature of arbitrary limits on the internet for an hour a day is fine. One minute over that and you need psychiatric help.
Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!
Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...
Without the personal vote for Lamb, they could never hang on at last GE. Natural Conservative vote area. If Farron or Carmichael quit, the same will happen there. 2 seats in Scotland are only there because of Conservative voters voting tactically. The rest (7) are FBPE crackers areas. That is no base to build on.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
False claims of racism discredit the very concept of racism in the public mind, and so weeding them out is an incontrovertibly anti-racist act.
But if somebody is far more concerned with calling out the bollox than calling out the real thing, it is at the very least possible that they are either blind to the real thing or do not consider it of much importance.
We see the same thing with people who are incredibly exercised about men being falsely accused of sexual assault. It's possible that such people are also very hot on gender equality, but is it likely? No. Not really.
If you think about Margaret Thatcher, she never stepped out of the door without being immaculately dressed with that helmet of red hair.
Eh?
What are you 'eh'ing about? She dyed her hair red and styled it into a style that resembled a motorbike helmet - to me anyway.
There are loads of conflicting opinions on Thatch held by loads of people but I'd venture only one of them thinks she had red hair.
I think "Honey Blonde" was what it said on the bottle how it was described. She also wore a three quarters wig too. If you want a real (sic) red head, Barbara Castle's hair was a colour not found in nature.....
Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!
Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...
Without the personal vote for Lamb, they could never hang on at last GE. Natural Conservative vote area. If Farron or Carmichael quit, the same will happen there. 2 seats in Scotland are only there because of Conservative voters voting tactically. The rest (7) are FBPE crackers areas. That is no base to build on.
Orkney is a natural Conservative area? I would have said the opposite.
'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '
'"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
I don't see how that's a self-own.
You set off down a rabbit hole of dumbness with the idea that the EU is racist (immediately after saying being anti Islam can't be racist), you then burrowed further down with the proposition that France had blocked Turkish accession because of race, and to support that you cited a Graun article that revolved entirely around French suspicion of Turkey's Islamic nature.
Short of shelling out for a cataract operation I don't really know how I can help you see it more clearly.
Define anti-Islam. To me it is just like anti-Semitism:
If you are against people of a Jewish/Muslim ethnicity or background regardless of their own beliefs or characteristics then that is racism.
If you are against specific beliefs of Judaism or Islam because of those beliefs and treat people no differently based on background that is not racism.
So to paraphrase:
EU and France racist cos they're anti Islam. Tory Party not racist cos they're anti Islam.
Glad we cleared that up.
No.
Being against Islamic beliefs - not racism. Being against those of Islamic background rather than treat the individual as an individual - racism.
Just like its OK to criticise Israel and not be anti-Semitic. Its OK to criticise Islam and not be racist.
I kind of respect your ability to bang on about the same wrong point for hours.
I'm at home without much work at the minute. Got to find something to do and it beats Peppa Pig or Muppet Babies.
Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!
Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...
Without the personal vote for Lamb, they could never hang on at last GE. Natural Conservative vote area. If Farron or Carmichael quit, the same will happen there. 2 seats in Scotland are only there because of Conservative voters voting tactically. The rest (7) are FBPE crackers areas. That is no base to build on.
Without Brake, Sutton Carshalton may also become interesting. The Tories won the seat in 2019 , but how likely are the LDs to win it back? Labour has potential to move forward there.
The Scottish process stages splits the English risk level 3 into two. I think this distinction confusing and unnecessary. The other stages/risk levels appropriate. In general I think the Scottish policy is articulated in a more coherent way than the English equivalent. Readers are treated as a adults.
You can drive 5 miles to play golf in Scotland . But not 6.
Daft.
Aiming to keep secondary infections to the local area. Even though infection rates should be low, there will be some. Makes sense and not daft at all.
Will be interesting to see the reaction when the U.K. reject any idea of reciprocal migration arrangements in free trade negotiations with, say, Australia because they would be inherently racist.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Australia would agree reciprocal free movement with the UK.
Which is why I refer to ‘migration arrangements’. The argument being made is that a system that confers advantage based on where someone comes from, rather than their talent, is inherently racist. On that basis, no bilateral or multilateral agreement can ever have reciprocal arrangements for migration at any level.
The rationale for including migration issues in a trade deal is so that you can secure reciprocal benefits for your own citizens. If you simply open up to everyone in the world, either as a free for all or on the basis of some skills or income criteria, it doesn't guarantee any reciprocal rights for Britons who want to live or work elsewhere. That's my main objection to moving from the single market with reciprocal free movement to the so called "points based immigration system". I don't really care who comes here, within reason, but I do care a lot about having rights that I was born with stripped from me. Free movement within the EU is just common sense - geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. There is no equivalent group of countries that would be willing to open their labour markets to us to the same extent. The usual suspects mentioned here, Aus/NZ, Canada etc, would never do it. Jacking in the EU single market for an immigration system which will involve very similar levels of immigration but no reciprocal rights for Britons is just dumb as fuck.
Just the sort of jolly japes to get Sturgeon's approval levels down to those of BJ. I fear any movement in the opposite direction for we♡Boris is now unlikely.
The Scottish process stages splits the English risk level 3 into two. I think this distinction confusing and unnecessary. The other stages/risk levels appropriate. In general I think the Scottish policy is articulated in a more coherent way than the English equivalent. Readers are treated as a adults.
You can drive 5 miles to play golf in Scotland . But not 6.
Daft.
And you can get there at 30 miles per hour (in a built-up area). But not at 31 mph. Equally so (or not).
For future reference, railing at the seemingly perverse nature of arbitrary limits on the internet for an hour a day is fine. One minute over that and you need psychiatric help.
You wouldnt get charged at 31mph due to 10% accuracy of speedometers and speed guns.
If you think about Margaret Thatcher, she never stepped out of the door without being immaculately dressed with that helmet of red hair.
Eh?
What are you 'eh'ing about? She dyed her hair red and styled it into a style that resembled a motorbike helmet - to me anyway.
There are loads of conflicting opinions on Thatch held by loads of people but I'd venture only one of them thinks she had red hair.
I think "Honey Blonde" was what it said on the bottle how it was described. She also wore a three quarters wig too. If you want a real (sic) red head, Barbara Castle's hair was a colour not found in nature.....
I think Barbara Castle was latterly a full wig wearer though not too bothered who knew it.
edit: definitely not bothered - 'she occasionally wore a wig – which she nicknamed Lucy – for public appearances'
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
False claims of racism discredit the very concept of racism in the public mind, and so weeding them out is an incontrovertibly anti-racist act.
But if somebody is far more concerned with calling out the bollox than calling out the real thing, it is at the very least possible that they are either blind to the real thing or do not consider it of much importance.
We see the same thing with people who are incredibly exercised about men being falsely accused of sexual assault. It's possible that such people are also very hot on gender equality, but is it likely? No. Not really.
I've been calling bullshit on varying forms of racial equality guff since the the police managed achieve a 99% young black male arrest rate under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Which was supposed to be to do with Northern Irish terrorists. IIRC there was one (1) confirmed black member of the IRA*.
Number of people with coronavirus in England remains stable, says ONS
The number of people with coronavirus in England has remained stable since the end of April, according to new data, with nearly 140,000 people infected in the last two weeks.
Agreed, really should be falling. Of course if we weren't practically the only country in the world who fail to record the number of cured cases we just might have a better idea.
@HYUFD I thought you said there would be no tax increases? I’m confused.
National Insurance is not a tax or should not be
I mean, it is a tax. The revenue goes into general taxation. Are you trying to suggest it’s not an income tax? Different thing.
The government could (and probably should) take the bold step of merging tax and NI, dealing with the self employed anomaly and raising significant extra revenue, whilst not breaking the word of its election promise.
I love the expression doubling down. It makes a failure to u-turn (itself a sign of despicable shame apparently) shameful by making not changing course look like a hostile tactic. They're not only not changing, they're doubling down!
Johnson's justification at PMQs yesterday for extracting every last penny out of heroic lifesavers Luis and Jenny - we need the money - falls within my definition of "doubling down".
The Scottish process stages splits the English risk level 3 into two. I think this distinction confusing and unnecessary. The other stages/risk levels appropriate. In general I think the Scottish policy is articulated in a more coherent way than the English equivalent. Readers are treated as a adults.
You can drive 5 miles to play golf in Scotland . But not 6.
Daft.
And you can get there at 30 miles per hour (in a built-up area). But not at 31 mph. Equally so (or not).
For future reference, railing at the seemingly perverse nature of arbitrary limits on the internet for an hour a day is fine. One minute over that and you need psychiatric help.
You wouldnt get charged at 31mph due to 10% accuracy of speedometers and speed guns.
That doesn't mean you're "allowed" to drive that fast; just that you wouldn't get charged.
It's also very unlikely that you'd be charged for being at a golf course 5.5 miles away from your house.
Will be interesting to see the reaction when the U.K. reject any idea of reciprocal migration arrangements in free trade negotiations with, say, Australia because they would be inherently racist.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Australia would agree reciprocal free movement with the UK.
Which is why I refer to ‘migration arrangements’. The argument being made is that a system that confers advantage based on where someone comes from, rather than their talent, is inherently racist. On that basis, no bilateral or multilateral agreement can ever have reciprocal arrangements for migration at any level.
The rationale for including migration issues in a trade deal is so that you can secure reciprocal benefits for your own citizens. If you simply open up to everyone in the world, either as a free for all or on the basis of some skills or income criteria, it doesn't guarantee any reciprocal rights for Britons who want to live or work elsewhere. That's my main objection to moving from the single market with reciprocal free movement to the so called "points based immigration system". I don't really care who comes here, within reason, but I do care a lot about having rights that I was born with stripped from me. Free movement within the EU is just common sense - geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. There is no equivalent group of countries that would be willing to open their labour markets to us to the same extent. The usual suspects mentioned here, Aus/NZ, Canada etc, would never do it. Jacking in the EU single market for an immigration system which will involve very similar levels of immigration but no reciprocal rights for Britons is just dumb as fuck.
When the EU was six nations maybe they were geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. And if we were to look at as you suggested something like CANZUK that would be the same minus geographically close.
But that's not been true for decades and you can see it in the one way nature of migration flows. Look at the bidirectional migration flows and a deal with Australia would be far more logical than a deal with Romania for example. As is the case when you look at income etc.
You have to wonder why they decided to dig their heels in on this one. Two possibilities: 1. They truly are tone deaf as to how this looks to normals outside their bubble. 2. They genuinely think "kick the foreigner" will score them points with their voters
3. It is a completely artificial issue where one part of the government (NHS) will end up paying another part (Home Office) the fee as the promoting employer if they need to do that to fill the vacancies.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca today announced it has the capacity to make one billion doses of an experimental coronavirus vaccine.
UK has reportedly ordered 100million doses for a population of 66million people...
I assume the excess would enable us to offer vaccinations to international arrivals, which would be a pragmatic way to allow the end of quarantine restrictions and boost the UK as a tourist destination.
If the UK population was widely vaccinated there would be no need (UK population then neither susceptible to infection from the arrivals nor a risk to the arrivals).
(Ignoring whether a vaccine would be of any help to someone already infected - I know it can in some cases, like rabies, but not in general, I think?)
Assuming only one dose is needed per person, it's a bit of a puzzle. International aid? Enough to continue vaccination of new children/permanent immigrants for a few years? In the latter case, you would not think there's a need to order quite so many right now.
Deaths should be dropping by 6 per day according to the model at this point, as we head deeper into the tail the data will likely get noisier as individual deaths send the apparent trend up or down more so than previously where R may not be changing fundamentally.
'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '
'"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
I don't see how that's a self-own.
You set off down a rabbit hole of dumbness with the idea that the EU is racist (immediately after saying being anti Islam can't be racist), you then burrowed further down with the proposition that France had blocked Turkish accession because of race, and to support that you cited a Graun article that revolved entirely around French suspicion of Turkey's Islamic nature.
Short of shelling out for a cataract operation I don't really know how I can help you see it more clearly.
Define anti-Islam. To me it is just like anti-Semitism:
If you are against people of a Jewish/Muslim ethnicity or background regardless of their own beliefs or characteristics then that is racism.
If you are against specific beliefs of Judaism or Islam because of those beliefs and treat people no differently based on background that is not racism.
So to paraphrase:
EU and France racist cos they're anti Islam. Tory Party not racist cos they're anti Islam.
Glad we cleared that up.
No.
Being against Islamic beliefs - not racism. Being against those of Islamic background rather than treat the individual as an individual - racism.
Just like its OK to criticise Israel and not be anti-Semitic. Its OK to criticise Islam and not be racist.
I kind of respect your ability to bang on about the same wrong point for hours.
I'm at home without much work at the minute. Got to find something to do and it beats Peppa Pig or Muppet Babies.
For those of us you argue with it's about the same.
Tens of thousands of people have died unnecessarily because of the government's incompetence and there's a major bunfight over a minor aspect of our uniformly awful immigration system?
So, provisionally and subject to the eccentricities of the Scottish weather I am going to have a BBQ on the 31st which my daughter and her partner can attend provided that they don't come in the house and stay 2m apart in the garden. I suppose that is progress of a sort.
I am not clear, however, if the day before my son is going to be able to visit his girlfriend's garden to see her and her family as well. It seems so. Only 1 other household at a time I think, not the bubble idea that was discussed here yesterday.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
False claims of racism discredit the very concept of racism in the public mind, and so weeding them out is an incontrovertibly anti-racist act.
But if somebody is far more concerned with calling out the bollox than calling out the real thing, it is at the very least possible that they are either blind to the real thing or do not consider it of much importance.
We see the same thing with people who are incredibly exercised about men being falsely accused of sexual assault. It's possible that such people are also very hot on gender equality, but is it likely? No. Not really.
That may well be true of some people, but that doesn't invalidate the importance of dismantling false claims. I'm afraid that many of the PC nostrums of recent times - from the Guardian's weekly tendency to declare X racist for the most spurious reasons to 'I Believe Her (No Matter What)' - have done nothing but damage public trust in the causes they purport to serve.
Ironically enough, treating all claims of discrimination indiscriminately devalues them all. Critical thinking is what's needed, not ingenuous credulity, because the public can see through the latter and tends to despise it.
'and reluctant to embrace such a large and mainly Muslim country. '
'"Do we want the river of Islam to enter the riverbed of secularism?" '
I don't see how that's a self-own.
You set off down a rabbit hole of dumbness with the idea that the EU is racist (immediately after saying being anti Islam can't be racist), you then burrowed further down with the proposition that France had blocked Turkish accession because of race, and to support that you cited a Graun article that revolved entirely around French suspicion of Turkey's Islamic nature.
Short of shelling out for a cataract operation I don't really know how I can help you see it more clearly.
Define anti-Islam. To me it is just like anti-Semitism:
If you are against people of a Jewish/Muslim ethnicity or background regardless of their own beliefs or characteristics then that is racism.
If you are against specific beliefs of Judaism or Islam because of those beliefs and treat people no differently based on background that is not racism.
So to paraphrase:
EU and France racist cos they're anti Islam. Tory Party not racist cos they're anti Islam.
Glad we cleared that up.
No.
Being against Islamic beliefs - not racism. Being against those of Islamic background rather than treat the individual as an individual - racism.
Just like its OK to criticise Israel and not be anti-Semitic. Its OK to criticise Islam and not be racist.
I kind of respect your ability to bang on about the same wrong point for hours.
I'm at home without much work at the minute. Got to find something to do and it beats Peppa Pig or Muppet Babies.
For those of us you argue with it's about the same.
Will be interesting to see the reaction when the U.K. reject any idea of reciprocal migration arrangements in free trade negotiations with, say, Australia because they would be inherently racist.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Australia would agree reciprocal free movement with the UK.
Which is why I refer to ‘migration arrangements’. The argument being made is that a system that confers advantage based on where someone comes from, rather than their talent, is inherently racist. On that basis, no bilateral or multilateral agreement can ever have reciprocal arrangements for migration at any level.
The rationale for including migration issues in a trade deal is so that you can secure reciprocal benefits for your own citizens. If you simply open up to everyone in the world, either as a free for all or on the basis of some skills or income criteria, it doesn't guarantee any reciprocal rights for Britons who want to live or work elsewhere. That's my main objection to moving from the single market with reciprocal free movement to the so called "points based immigration system". I don't really care who comes here, within reason, but I do care a lot about having rights that I was born with stripped from me. Free movement within the EU is just common sense - geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. There is no equivalent group of countries that would be willing to open their labour markets to us to the same extent. The usual suspects mentioned here, Aus/NZ, Canada etc, would never do it. Jacking in the EU single market for an immigration system which will involve very similar levels of immigration but no reciprocal rights for Britons is just dumb as fuck.
When the EU was six nations maybe they were geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. And if we were to look at as you suggested something like CANZUK that would be the same minus geographically close.
But that's not been true for decades and you can see it in the one way nature of migration flows. Look at the bidirectional migration flows and a deal with Australia would be far more logical than a deal with Romania for example. As is the case when you look at income etc.
We have net immigration because we have an ageing population, which creates demand for labour while limiting supply. Leaving the EU won't change that, which is why immigration from outside the EU is going up. As I noted above, I don't care if the care workers, nurses, waiters etc demanded by our army of retired consumers are from Poland or Bangladesh, although it seems to me that some of those so exercised about immigration from Poland aren't going to be too impressed with who will be replacing them. But I am mad as hell that my own rights to live and work overseas have been ripped up.
Number of people with coronavirus in England remains stable, says ONS
The number of people with coronavirus in England has remained stable since the end of April, according to new data, with nearly 140,000 people infected in the last two weeks.
Agreed, really should be falling. Of course if we weren't practically the only country in the world who fail to record the number of cured cases we just might have a better idea.
Although the confidence intervals are huge on this data, with just 35 positives, so drawing too many conclusions would be unwise. Story from hospitals (new admissions, current cases) also worth keeping an eye on.
Will be interesting to see the reaction when the U.K. reject any idea of reciprocal migration arrangements in free trade negotiations with, say, Australia because they would be inherently racist.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Australia would agree reciprocal free movement with the UK.
Which is why I refer to ‘migration arrangements’. The argument being made is that a system that confers advantage based on where someone comes from, rather than their talent, is inherently racist. On that basis, no bilateral or multilateral agreement can ever have reciprocal arrangements for migration at any level.
The rationale for including migration issues in a trade deal is so that you can secure reciprocal benefits for your own citizens. If you simply open up to everyone in the world, either as a free for all or on the basis of some skills or income criteria, it doesn't guarantee any reciprocal rights for Britons who want to live or work elsewhere. That's my main objection to moving from the single market with reciprocal free movement to the so called "points based immigration system". I don't really care who comes here, within reason, but I do care a lot about having rights that I was born with stripped from me. Free movement within the EU is just common sense - geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. There is no equivalent group of countries that would be willing to open their labour markets to us to the same extent. The usual suspects mentioned here, Aus/NZ, Canada etc, would never do it. Jacking in the EU single market for an immigration system which will involve very similar levels of immigration but no reciprocal rights for Britons is just dumb as fuck.
When the EU was six nations maybe they were geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. And if we were to look at as you suggested something like CANZUK that would be the same minus geographically close.
But that's not been true for decades and you can see it in the one way nature of migration flows. Look at the bidirectional migration flows and a deal with Australia would be far more logical than a deal with Romania for example. As is the case when you look at income etc.
We have net immigration because we have an ageing population, which creates demand for labour while limiting supply. Leaving the EU won't change that, which is why immigration from outside the EU is going up. As I noted above, I don't care if the care workers, nurses, waiters etc demanded by our army of retired consumers are from Poland or Bangladesh, although it seems to me that some of those so exercised about immigration from Poland aren't going to be too impressed with who will be replacing them. But I am mad as hell that my own rights to live and work overseas have been ripped up.
No we have net immigration because we are a wealthy country that is attractive to live in.
You can see that in the breakdown of who goes where too. As a random individual you would be far, far more likely to exercise your rights if you had reciprocal free movement with Australia than with Romania.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
I'm sure Patel can get that sorted. Did I use the offending phrase somewhere? Personally I don't have a problem with it, it signifies that something is overwhelmingly probable but not nailed on, do you have a pithy alternative?
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
My point is that if you consider a metric for racism in one part of life, that metric is also applicable elsewhere.
The Green Belt policy, provably, ensures that more recent migrants have more expensive, smaller, lower quality housing.
That is not the way to assess racism. It's not about hard and fast rules. You judge each case on its merits. Is this a matter of people being discriminated against (directly or indirectly) primarily or mainly due to race? You simply answer that question. There are claims of racism that are absurd. But there is also plenty of real racism that is subtle and insidious rather than coded into law a la South Africa pre liberation, or evidenced by white hoods and torches.
@HYUFD I thought you said there would be no tax increases? I’m confused.
National Insurance is not a tax or should not be
I mean, it is a tax. The revenue goes into general taxation. Are you trying to suggest it’s not an income tax? Different thing.
The government could (and probably should) take the bold step of merging tax and NI, dealing with the self employed anomaly and raising significant extra revenue, whilst not breaking the word of its election promise.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
Number of people with coronavirus in England remains stable, says ONS
The number of people with coronavirus in England has remained stable since the end of April, according to new data, with nearly 140,000 people infected in the last two weeks.
Agreed, really should be falling. Of course if we weren't practically the only country in the world who fail to record the number of cured cases we just might have a better idea.
Although the confidence intervals are huge on this data, with just 35 positives, so drawing too many conclusions would be unwise. Story from hospitals (new admissions, current cases) also worth keeping an eye on.
Oh I agree. The number of tests and the record of testing historically is still far too small and far too slow to have any real confidence about the numbers one way or the other. We are, for good economic reasons, going into this pretty blind and hoping for the best. Gulp.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
Any decision the Tories make, you can be sure the PB Tories will be in here explaining it away
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
My point is that if you consider a metric for racism in one part of life, that metric is also applicable elsewhere.
The Green Belt policy, provably, ensures that more recent migrants have more expensive, smaller, lower quality housing.
That is not the way to assess racism. It's not about hard and fast rules. You judge each case on its merits. Is this a matter of people being discriminated against (directly or indirectly) primarily or mainly due to race? You simply answer that question. There are claims of racism that are absurd. But there is also plenty of real racism that is subtle and insidious rather than coded into law a la South Africa pre liberation, or evidenced by white hoods and torches.
Possibly - but if we are to judge the police and public services by the Institutional Racism measure - why not immigration and housing.
Incidentally, I don't think that they went in for white hoods in South Africa under Apartheid. They were much more upfront about the racism than that.
Unless you are thinking about the subversion operations against the black community? Which were not especially convert, either.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
So if you worked in sales you would wait until you'd made a sale before you launched into the pitch? You could be waiting a while on the former if you never want to make the latter.
Fortunately as this is just mundane stuff like government advice on the nation's school children its fine for the execution to be botched and non-sensical.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
Hmm...if you are not ready to release the science where is your evidence?
But this is no win stuff. If they had announced the science first they would be "dragging their feet" and carrying out U turns when the policy was then announced. Pure bubble.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
Any decision the Tories make, you can be sure the PB Tories will be in here explaining it away
Only if it's the right decision.
Have you ever ran an organisation? Do you understand how much goes into preparing for something? Do you think schools can open overnight without preparations?
Number of people with coronavirus in England remains stable, says ONS
The number of people with coronavirus in England has remained stable since the end of April, according to new data, with nearly 140,000 people infected in the last two weeks.
The statistical uncertainty about these estimates is huge. The 95% confidence interval for that number is 85,000 to 208,000.
They also estimated the number of new cases per week in England for the period 26 April to 17 May at about 61,000, but with a confidence interval of 29,000 to 111,000. I'd suggest that 61,000 is very much on the low side, considering about 91,000 people in the UK actually tested positive during those three weeks, implying more than 40% of infections were picked up by testing. I would find that unbelievably high.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
My point is that if you consider a metric for racism in one part of life, that metric is also applicable elsewhere.
The Green Belt policy, provably, ensures that more recent migrants have more expensive, smaller, lower quality housing.
That is not the way to assess racism. It's not about hard and fast rules. You judge each case on its merits. Is this a matter of people being discriminated against (directly or indirectly) primarily or mainly due to race? You simply answer that question. There are claims of racism that are absurd. But there is also plenty of real racism that is subtle and insidious rather than coded into law a la South Africa pre liberation, or evidenced by white hoods and torches.
So indirectly discriminating against people is still racism? Glad that's been cleared up as I was rounded upon for suggesting that earlier.
Being a sadcase i looked back at N Norfolk election history some more. From 1951 - 1966 inclusive it was a straight Lab-Con fight only and was highly marginal. Labour held it every time for 5 elections in a row including 4 with less than 1000 majority and with an average majority of just 594 votes!
Well i find this stuff interesting anyway...
Without the personal vote for Lamb, they could never hang on at last GE. Natural Conservative vote area. If Farron or Carmichael quit, the same will happen there. 2 seats in Scotland are only there because of Conservative voters voting tactically. The rest (7) are FBPE crackers areas. That is no base to build on.
Orkney is a natural Conservative area? I would have said the opposite.
Number of people with coronavirus in England remains stable, says ONS
The number of people with coronavirus in England has remained stable since the end of April, according to new data, with nearly 140,000 people infected in the last two weeks.
The statistical uncertainty about these estimates is huge. The 95% confidence interval for that number is 85,000 to 208,000.
They also estimated the number of new cases per week for the period 26 April to 17 May at about 61,000, but with a confidence interval of 29,000 to 111,000. I'd suggest that 61,000 is very much on the low side, considering about 91,000 people actually tested positive during those three weeks, implying more than 40% of infections were picked up by testing. I would find that unbelievably high.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
And actually, more to the point, wouldn't the science have to be available before the advice was given? Why not release it at the same time?
Its almost like the Government had an idea and then demanded that the science be thrown together to justify it. Whether that is true or not the back to front messaging will generate that impression.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
And actually, more to the point, wouldn't the science have to be available before the advice was given? Why not release it at the same time?
Its almost like the Government had an idea and then demanded that the science be thrown together to justify it. Whether that is true or not the back to front messaging will generate that impression.
No. Once the advice is in you can digest it and make a statement. Putting the advice in a format suitable for public release, redacting anything that needs redacting, getting it signed off etc takes a bit more time.
Number of people with coronavirus in England remains stable, says ONS
The number of people with coronavirus in England has remained stable since the end of April, according to new data, with nearly 140,000 people infected in the last two weeks.
The statistical uncertainty about these estimates is huge. The 95% confidence interval for that number is 85,000 to 208,000.
They also estimated the number of new cases per week for the period 26 April to 17 May at about 61,000, but with a confidence interval of 29,000 to 111,000. I'd suggest that 61,000 is very much on the low side, considering about 91,000 people actually tested positive during those three weeks, implying more than 40% of infections were picked up by testing. I would find that unbelievably high.
If the tests were of the random population that would clearly be right. But if the tests are of those most likely to be infected and infective, front line NHS staff, those with symptoms, those in care homes or providing social care it becomes slightly more credible that they are picking up that percentage of cases. Evidence of this spreading widely in the general public outside risk groups is not non existent but slight.
On EU immigration, there's been years of PB Tories lecturing the lefties that Brexit was all Blair's fault for not imposing transitional controls on the A8 countries, or due to lefties dismissing concerns about immigration as racist, etc.
Where's the great democratic advance if people vote to leave the EU to reduce immigration and it doesn't decrease? What do people think those voters will do then?
Perhaps people might come to conclude that they should have argued for the benefits of immigration rather than using the issue for short-term partisan advantage?
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
Any decision the Tories make, you can be sure the PB Tories will be in here explaining it away
Only if it's the right decision.
Have you ever ran an organisation? Do you understand how much goes into preparing for something? Do you think schools can open overnight without preparations?
If the Tories made it, it is automatically right. You know that.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Birdnet uses "almost certain" when it identifies birdsong even when you know it is absolutely bloody sure of its result. It never uses "definitely".
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising.
While we're on the subject, the one I've never heard of walked into a bar and the barman says "why the long face...?"
Sorry...
I presume they were unchallenged because for one various people have commented on odd looking male politicians, and that there may be an unfairness in female politicians getting so judged more than male ones was also noted, and part of it was about dress which does apply to men, and it was all rather detached in tone for the most part.
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
Men are always judging women on their appearance. It is so commonplace that I think most of us simply put up with it (most of the time).
I find find it rather amazing TBH, given how many men seem to have jeans halfway down their a*se or shirts that are not even close to fitting.
Quite.
Still of the three Daisy looks lovely and stylish, Ed Daley is presentable and well dressed and Layla needs to find a suit that fits properly and that doesn’t make her look as as if she picked it off the rails at an Oxfam shop with her eyes shut.
Went off Layla after hearing her during the last GE campaign. I like Ed Davey. Know nothing about Daisy Cooper. A party that spoke up for true liberal values would be nice. Not sure if the LibDems are that party anymore, though.
Ms Moran looks like she needs to buy an iron and a maybe someone should buy her a voucher for ColourMeBeautiful
I know nothing about the others except Davey has been around for quite a while and Ms Cooper has not been around long enough to be leading a party.
I voted LD last time because of the loathing I had for the other two parties, not because I liked them. They were merely the least objectionable
You shouldn’t dismiss being least objectionable so lightly.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
And actually, more to the point, wouldn't the science have to be available before the advice was given? Why not release it at the same time?
Its almost like the Government had an idea and then demanded that the science be thrown together to justify it. Whether that is true or not the back to front messaging will generate that impression.
No. Once the advice is in you can digest it and make a statement. Putting the advice in a format suitable for public release, redacting anything that needs redacting, getting it signed off etc takes a bit more time.
So do you waste that precious time or go ahead?
Redacting? Are we on to known-knowns and unknown-un-knowns now? Is anything redacted in the scientific data? Wasn't it already in a format that well-known genius Gavin Williamson could understand? There may be some cartoon figures that are blanked out or did it need to be converted from phonetic English into actual English?
Also, would the UK Government waste precious time? Would it? Can't think of any examples myself...
That is the Unionist candidate for FM next year. Moronic decision.
There were only two candidates and as far as I recall, the other lady, whilst undoubtedly she has many fine qualities, was no more experienced, and as English as Mary Poppins to boot. Which shouldn't matter but unfortunately these days it does.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
That isn't new. As I said the Conservative Party is not a conservative party exclusively and never has been.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
Conservative yes please, conservative no thanks.
Have you ever voted UKIP out of interest?
I think you’ll find people mostly voted UKIP out of disinterest.
That is the Unionist candidate for FM next year. Moronic decision.
There were only two candidates and as far as I recall, the other lady, whilst undoubtedly she has many fine qualities, was no more experienced, and as English as Mary Poppins to boot. Which shouldn't matter but unfortunately these days it does.
I strongly object to comparing useless politicians to chocolate teapots.
If you have a chocolate teapot - you have chocolate to eat.
I don't think that eating useless politicians is sensible, or to be recommended.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
Any decision the Tories make, you can be sure the PB Tories will be in here explaining it away
Only if it's the right decision.
Have you ever ran an organisation? Do you understand how much goes into preparing for something? Do you think schools can open overnight without preparations?
If the Tories made it, it is automatically right. You know that.
Yeah that's why I was such a massive proponent of Theresa May's backstop as Topping will confirm. You've got me.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
My point is that if you consider a metric for racism in one part of life, that metric is also applicable elsewhere.
The Green Belt policy, provably, ensures that more recent migrants have more expensive, smaller, lower quality housing.
That is not the way to assess racism. It's not about hard and fast rules. You judge each case on its merits. Is this a matter of people being discriminated against (directly or indirectly) primarily or mainly due to race? You simply answer that question. There are claims of racism that are absurd. But there is also plenty of real racism that is subtle and insidious rather than coded into law a la South Africa pre liberation, or evidenced by white hoods and torches.
So indirectly discriminating against people is still racism? Glad that's been cleared up as I was rounded upon for suggesting that earlier.
If something is (albeit indirectly) discriminating against people primarily or mainly due to their race, it is reasonable to call it racist. The EU example fails the italics for me. So is it an example of you playing the PC race card? No, I think not. I think there's a genuine misunderstanding here on your part.
That is the Unionist candidate for FM next year. Moronic decision.
There were only two candidates and as far as I recall, the other lady, whilst undoubtedly she has many fine qualities, was no more experienced, and as English as Mary Poppins to boot. Which shouldn't matter but unfortunately these days it does.
But Richard Leonard is....
Okay, I see your point.
Still a very small sample though. We could try an English born leader who wasn't completely and irredeemably useless as a test.
Will be interesting to see the reaction when the U.K. reject any idea of reciprocal migration arrangements in free trade negotiations with, say, Australia because they would be inherently racist.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Australia would agree reciprocal free movement with the UK.
Which is why I refer to ‘migration arrangements’. The argument being made is that a system that confers advantage based on where someone comes from, rather than their talent, is inherently racist. On that basis, no bilateral or multilateral agreement can ever have reciprocal arrangements for migration at any level.
The rationale for including migration issues in a trade deal is so that you can secure reciprocal benefits for your own citizens. If you simply open up to everyone in the world, either as a free for all or on the basis of some skills or income criteria, it doesn't guarantee any reciprocal rights for Britons who want to live or work elsewhere. That's my main objection to moving from the single market with reciprocal free movement to the so called "points based immigration system". I don't really care who comes here, within reason, but I do care a lot about having rights that I was born with stripped from me. Free movement within the EU is just common sense - geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. There is no equivalent group of countries that would be willing to open their labour markets to us to the same extent. The usual suspects mentioned here, Aus/NZ, Canada etc, would never do it. Jacking in the EU single market for an immigration system which will involve very similar levels of immigration but no reciprocal rights for Britons is just dumb as fuck.
When the EU was six nations maybe they were geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. And if we were to look at as you suggested something like CANZUK that would be the same minus geographically close.
But that's not been true for decades and you can see it in the one way nature of migration flows. Look at the bidirectional migration flows and a deal with Australia would be far more logical than a deal with Romania for example. As is the case when you look at income etc.
We have net immigration because we have an ageing population, which creates demand for labour while limiting supply. Leaving the EU won't change that, which is why immigration from outside the EU is going up. As I noted above, I don't care if the care workers, nurses, waiters etc demanded by our army of retired consumers are from Poland or Bangladesh, although it seems to me that some of those so exercised about immigration from Poland aren't going to be too impressed with who will be replacing them. But I am mad as hell that my own rights to live and work overseas have been ripped up.
No we have net immigration because we are a wealthy country that is attractive to live in.
You can see that in the breakdown of who goes where too. As a random individual you would be far, far more likely to exercise your rights if you had reciprocal free movement with Australia than with Romania.
If relative income were the main driver of migration then why do more people not migrate? If there wasn't demand for labour in the UK generated by our lopsided population structure, then there would have been high unemployment, rather than the lowest unemployment for decades and high levels of employment. If you look at the approximately 8mn foreign born people in the UK, about 2mn are from poor members of the EU in Eastern Europe. 2mn are from countries with similar levels of income per capita to the UK or in some cases much higher (what the hell can these people be doing here?). And 4mn are from poor countries outside of the EU. You are going to get more of the last category and fewer of the first category, but the numbers won't change overall because they reflect a supply and demand imbalance in the UK labour market. All that's happened is that we've given up our own rights to live and work across Europe.
Because people need time to prepare. So once you have the evidence that it's safe to open schools then it makes sense to let the schools know that so they can make preparations even before you're ready to release the science.
Any decision the Tories make, you can be sure the PB Tories will be in here explaining it away
Only if it's the right decision.
Have you ever ran an organisation? Do you understand how much goes into preparing for something? Do you think schools can open overnight without preparations?
If the Tories made it, it is automatically right. You know that.
Yeah that's why I was such a massive proponent of Theresa May's backstop as Topping will confirm. You've got me.
I can confirm this. You didn't like it one bit.
You made it perfectly clear that you are firmly with Jeremy Corbyn and the Revolutionary Communist Party in wanting a united Ireland.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
I wonder how likely it is that somebody who has "endless fun" exposing false claims of racism is also a racist?
My point is that if you consider a metric for racism in one part of life, that metric is also applicable elsewhere.
The Green Belt policy, provably, ensures that more recent migrants have more expensive, smaller, lower quality housing.
That is not the way to assess racism. It's not about hard and fast rules. You judge each case on its merits. Is this a matter of people being discriminated against (directly or indirectly) primarily or mainly due to race? You simply answer that question. There are claims of racism that are absurd. But there is also plenty of real racism that is subtle and insidious rather than coded into law a la South Africa pre liberation, or evidenced by white hoods and torches.
So indirectly discriminating against people is still racism? Glad that's been cleared up as I was rounded upon for suggesting that earlier.
If something is (albeit indirectly) discriminating against people primarily or mainly due to their race, it is reasonable to call it racist. The EU example fails the italics for me. So is it an example of you playing the PC race card? No, I think not. I think there's a genuine misunderstanding here on your part.
If the GOP remove polling stations from primarily minority communities in order to suppress voting is that racist? Yes or no?
Only 7% potential immunity in the most affected part of the only country in the world that was actively trying to develop herd immunity in the population.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Birdnet uses "almost certain" when it identifies birdsong even when you know it is absolutely bloody sure of its result. It never uses "definitely".
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Or you could take me along when birding. My assessment of an identification would be "Nailed on."
Where's the great democratic advance if people vote to leave the EU to reduce immigration and it doesn't decrease? What do people think those voters will do then?
If voters care enough they will vote for someone who will do as they are told. They couldn't influence things on an EU level, it is much easier now.
On topic: Perhaps this is an opportunity for the LDs?
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Birdnet uses "almost certain" when it identifies birdsong even when you know it is absolutely bloody sure of its result. It never uses "definitely".
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Or you could take me along when birding. My assessment of an identification would be "Nailed on."
A really, really old fashioned bird *collector*, then?
That is the Unionist candidate for FM next year. Moronic decision.
There were only two candidates and as far as I recall, the other lady, whilst undoubtedly she has many fine qualities, was no more experienced, and as English as Mary Poppins to boot. Which shouldn't matter but unfortunately these days it does.
Do you think the general consensus about Leonard being a bit crap is influenced by his (actual rather than just sounding it) Englishness? I'd say Ballantyne being a bit crap was a much bigger obstacle to her ambitions than sounding English, which I suppose says something about the realism of SCons v. SLab.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
What is the point of question 1?
Besides which 1 a cure/vaccine for Covid-19 2 a solution to climate change 3 a deal between the UK and the EU Would probably be higher on most people’s list.
Great news, and I'm sure exactly what all the Brexit supporters voted for.
Yes it is what many of us including me voted for. It's what many politicians including our current Prime Minister and current Home Secretary campaigned for.
Agreed. But you wouldn't have won without the racists.
If Labour had by some fluke squeaked into government in 2019, it wouldn't have done so without the votes of communists and antisemites. What's your point?
The anti semitism in labour will never go away.. its ingrained.
I hope the EHRC investigation will go somewhere to resolving it.
Now what about the Tories and their Islamophobia problem, where is the report that was promised? Odd how the PB Tories don't seem to care about racism when it is their own side.
Cue a hundred 'how can you be racist against a religion' replies and the subsequent death of the soul.
Answer: You can't be.
I just think you're a hypocrite for being appalled at racism and discrimination in one party yet happily voting for another one that has clear evidence of doing similar - but we have covered this ground before.
I make a point of never believing allegations of racism in a political party until someone has been given a peerage for proving that there isn't one.
Don't really see how this denies or conflicts with anything I said. I am appalled at racism within Labour, I have apologised for not calling it out quickly enough and on the manner of the peerage, I completely agree with you.
But that does not dispute what I said about racism and prejudice in the Tory Party. And how anyone can claim to take the moral high ground on racism and then vote Tory is beyond me.
Maybe because the Tory Party, unlike outfits like the BNP and the Labour Party, has never been the subject of a formal EHRC investigation for racism?
Just a thought.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
Why? The Conservative Party is a party the believes in people based on who they are not where they come from or the colour of their skin. I support that 100%.
And yet what I say is undeniably true. Very few people for whom racism is a massive concern are strong supporters of the current Conservative Party.
I guess the reason is that such people sense that for both members and passionate supporters of the current Conservative Party, false accusations of racism - "playing the race card" - is a bigger problem in the UK than racism itself.
So there's a disconnect there.
No what you say is not true. Please provide any evidence that the 14 million Tory voters included "very few people for whom racism is a massive concern". I could name multiple Conservatives on this very website for whom it is a concern.
I'm happy to do a poll on here if you like.
Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
There will be more (ii) amongst Tories than Labs.
I'll bet you your £5 against my life. My life.
Firstly I'd like to see how you can do a scientific poll not a voodoo survey. Secondly multiple things can be true. Thirdly what you said was "very few".
If you can address those 3 issues then please go ahead with a proposal.
It will give an indication as to how concerned PB Cons are with racism compared to PB Labs. I'd love to poll the nation or "scientifically" do some brain scans, but alas it's not practical.
Do you want to go first?
No it wouldn't since the two options are not mutually exclusive. You've set up a false dichotomy.
BRC approved opinion polls are considered scientific.
Nonsense. Both questions are impeccable in that regard. You can answer (i) and (ii), or (i) and (i), or (ii) and (i), or (ii) and (ii).
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
You can both be opposed to racism and to falsely "pulling the race card". They're not opposites.
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
Everybody WILL be opposed to both those things. This is why the question asks which is the bigger problem.
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes (ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No (ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
No they're stupid questions that have nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was: If racism is one of your very biggest concerns you are quite unlikely to be a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. I think we all know this really.
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns? (i) Yes (if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party? (i) Yes (ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
My questions are anything but stupid (as if!) but there's nothing wrong with yours either. Or your answers. Very clear. It does beg an obvious question though -
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
I love the expression doubling down. It makes a failure to u-turn (itself a sign of despicable shame apparently) shameful by making not changing course look like a hostile tactic. They're not only not changing, they're doubling down!
Johnson's justification at PMQs yesterday for extracting every last penny out of heroic lifesavers Luis and Jenny - we need the money - falls within my definition of "doubling down".
The point was that it doesnt mean anything as an item of news. Gov hasn't u turned yet is not much of a story do doubling down or turns a deaf ear or whatever is a way to manufacture a story.
Will be interesting to see the reaction when the U.K. reject any idea of reciprocal migration arrangements in free trade negotiations with, say, Australia because they would be inherently racist.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Australia would agree reciprocal free movement with the UK.
Which is why I refer to ‘migration arrangements’. The argument being made is that a system that confers advantage based on where someone comes from, rather than their talent, is inherently racist. On that basis, no bilateral or multilateral agreement can ever have reciprocal arrangements for migration at any level.
The rationale for including migration issues in a trade deal is so that you can secure reciprocal benefits for your own citizens. If you simply open up to everyone in the world, either as a free for all or on the basis of some skills or income criteria, it doesn't guarantee any reciprocal rights for Britons who want to live or work elsewhere. That's my main objection to moving from the single market with reciprocal free movement to the so called "points based immigration system". I don't really care who comes here, within reason, but I do care a lot about having rights that I was born with stripped from me. Free movement within the EU is just common sense - geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. There is no equivalent group of countries that would be willing to open their labour markets to us to the same extent. The usual suspects mentioned here, Aus/NZ, Canada etc, would never do it. Jacking in the EU single market for an immigration system which will involve very similar levels of immigration but no reciprocal rights for Britons is just dumb as fuck.
When the EU was six nations maybe they were geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. And if we were to look at as you suggested something like CANZUK that would be the same minus geographically close.
But that's not been true for decades and you can see it in the one way nature of migration flows. Look at the bidirectional migration flows and a deal with Australia would be far more logical than a deal with Romania for example. As is the case when you look at income etc.
We have net immigration because we have an ageing population, which creates demand for labour while limiting supply. Leaving the EU won't change that, which is why immigration from outside the EU is going up. As I noted above, I don't care if the care workers, nurses, waiters etc demanded by our army of retired consumers are from Poland or Bangladesh, although it seems to me that some of those so exercised about immigration from Poland aren't going to be too impressed with who will be replacing them. But I am mad as hell that my own rights to live and work overseas have been ripped up.
No we have net immigration because we are a wealthy country that is attractive to live in.
You can see that in the breakdown of who goes where too. As a random individual you would be far, far more likely to exercise your rights if you had reciprocal free movement with Australia than with Romania.
If relative income were the main driver of migration then why do more people not migrate? If there wasn't demand for labour in the UK generated by our lopsided population structure, then there would have been high unemployment, rather than the lowest unemployment for decades and high levels of employment. If you look at the approximately 8mn foreign born people in the UK, about 2mn are from poor members of the EU in Eastern Europe. 2mn are from countries with similar levels of income per capita to the UK or in some cases much higher (what the hell can these people be doing here?). And 4mn are from poor countries outside of the EU. You are going to get more of the last category and fewer of the first category, but the numbers won't change overall because they reflect a supply and demand imbalance in the UK labour market. All that's happened is that we've given up our own rights to live and work across Europe.
There is no fixed quantity of jobs.
Relative incomes is a main driver but successive governments have tried to cap it.
Demand for labour is led by the fact we are a wealthy nation that spends a lot. Age has little to do with it.
We have low unemployment because we have a flexible labour market.
Compare the UK to Italy. We are a younger country with fewer retired people but less unemployment and more migration. The complete opposite of your theory.
I can't help but notice that those people lauding the EHRC investigation into the Labour Party are almost certainly the same people who, under different circumstances, would be advocating the abolition of the EHRC because it is a politically correct wasteful quango that epitomises all that is wrong with the liberal metropolitan elite.
And the notion that EU free movement principles contain any shred of racism is palpable nonsense, showing neither an understanding of the EU nor of racism.
Of course EU free movement isn't racist. But it's amusing to argue that its effects are, given that left-wingers will very frequently incorrectly label things as racist using even more tenuous logic. Getting them to formulate arguments that begin, 'Of course that's not racist, that's completely illogical...' is excellent corrective training for them.
As for the EHRC, if we're going to have politically-correct wasteful quangos, it's a excellent thing that they've finally done something that contributes to the public good for a change.
Under the doctrine of Institutional Racism, a structure or system that has a racially imbalanced result compared to the population is racist by implication.
Since the world in aggregate is more racially diverse than Europe, an immigration policy that prioritises Europeans is therefore.....
You can endless fun with this. For example, the Green Belt policy is provably racist, in those terms.
Nicely put. Getting lefties to confront the limitless absurdities of that philosophy - the Guardian Doctrine, perhaps? - is great fun.
You need to get out more.
At any other time that would be true. But at the moment I can indulge my indoorsiness to the full
No, seriously. For you ze lockdown is over.
It is time for using the words "almost certainly" to become a capital offence.
Birdnet uses "almost certain" when it identifies birdsong even when you know it is absolutely bloody sure of its result. It never uses "definitely".
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Or you could take me along when birding. My assessment of an identification would be "Nailed on."
My big step forward is apart from the obvious ones (blackbirds, robins, crows, jackdaws, pheasants, wood pigeons) I can now recognise a chaffinch and a whitethroat when hearing and not seeing them. Next up is yellowhammer.
Seems that a couple of weeks ago you couldn't move for chaffinches and now you can't move for whitethroats. Is this my imagination?
Comments
Being against Islamic beliefs - not racism.
Being against those of Islamic background rather than treat the individual as an individual - racism.
Just like its OK to criticise Israel and not be anti-Semitic. Its OK to criticise Islam and not be racist.
Utterly despicable. And par for the course from this rancid government.
Looks like a small uptick in the numbers...
For future reference, railing at the seemingly perverse nature of arbitrary limits on the internet for an hour a day is fine. One minute over that and you need psychiatric help.
If Farron or Carmichael quit, the same will happen there.
2 seats in Scotland are only there because of Conservative voters voting tactically.
The rest (7) are FBPE crackers areas. That is no base to build on.
We see the same thing with people who are incredibly exercised about men being falsely accused of sexual assault. It's possible that such people are also very hot on gender equality, but is it likely? No. Not really.
That's my main objection to moving from the single market with reciprocal free movement to the so called "points based immigration system". I don't really care who comes here, within reason, but I do care a lot about having rights that I was born with stripped from me.
Free movement within the EU is just common sense - geographically close countries with broadly similar levels of income who together provide a large and diversified market. There is no equivalent group of countries that would be willing to open their labour markets to us to the same extent. The usual suspects mentioned here, Aus/NZ, Canada etc, would never do it. Jacking in the EU single market for an immigration system which will involve very similar levels of immigration but no reciprocal rights for Britons is just dumb as fuck.
edit: definitely not bothered - 'she occasionally wore a wig – which she nicknamed Lucy – for public appearances'
It works perfectly.
C'mon, don't be timid. I'm not pulling another "Muscles" Johnson on you.
It's also very unlikely that you'd be charged for being at a golf course 5.5 miles away from your house.
But that's not been true for decades and you can see it in the one way nature of migration flows. Look at the bidirectional migration flows and a deal with Australia would be far more logical than a deal with Romania for example. As is the case when you look at income etc.
16-May-20 138 (Missed already 152)
17-May-20 132 (124 currently)
18-May-20 126 (118 currently)
19-May-20 120
20-May-20 114
True deaths (NHS England statistics) count projection...
You can both be opposed to racism and to eg consider Health, Education and Jobs to be the 3 most important issues.
(Ignoring whether a vaccine would be of any help to someone already infected - I know it can in some cases, like rabies, but not in general, I think?)
Assuming only one dose is needed per person, it's a bit of a puzzle. International aid? Enough to continue vaccination of new children/permanent immigrants for a few years? In the latter case, you would not think there's a need to order quite so many right now.
Displacement activity.
I am not clear, however, if the day before my son is going to be able to visit his girlfriend's garden to see her and her family as well. It seems so. Only 1 other household at a time I think, not the bubble idea that was discussed here yesterday.
Ironically enough, treating all claims of discrimination indiscriminately devalues them all. Critical thinking is what's needed, not ingenuous credulity, because the public can see through the latter and tends to despise it.
You can see that in the breakdown of who goes where too. As a random individual you would be far, far more likely to exercise your rights if you had reciprocal free movement with Australia than with Romania.
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1263462761394307072?s=20
20th 21st
East 32 25 -7
London 13 19 6
Midlands 42 36 -6
North East 37 33 -4
North West 21 45 24
South East 17 24 7
South West 4 5 1
Did I use the offending phrase somewhere? Personally I don't have a problem with it, it signifies that something is overwhelmingly probable but not nailed on, do you have a pithy alternative?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8343703/NHS-care-home-staff-access-coronavirus-antibody-tests-week.html
Hopefully we are going to buy the Welsh ones as well. Seems daft not to, since home made, more accurate and can get priority on them.
For added fun: put NI rates to a referendum...
Incidentally, I don't think that they went in for white hoods in South Africa under Apartheid. They were much more upfront about the racism than that.
Unless you are thinking about the subversion operations against the black community? Which were not especially convert, either.
Fortunately as this is just mundane stuff like government advice on the nation's school children its fine for the execution to be botched and non-sensical.
But this is no win stuff. If they had announced the science first they would be "dragging their feet" and carrying out U turns when the policy was then announced. Pure bubble.
Have you ever ran an organisation? Do you understand how much goes into preparing for something? Do you think schools can open overnight without preparations?
They also estimated the number of new cases per week in England for the period 26 April to 17 May at about 61,000, but with a confidence interval of 29,000 to 111,000. I'd suggest that 61,000 is very much on the low side, considering about 91,000 people in the UK actually tested positive during those three weeks, implying more than 40% of infections were picked up by testing. I would find that unbelievably high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkney_and_Shetland_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Its almost like the Government had an idea and then demanded that the science be thrown together to justify it. Whether that is true or not the back to front messaging will generate that impression.
So do you waste that precious time or go ahead?
Where's the great democratic advance if people vote to leave the EU to reduce immigration and it doesn't decrease? What do people think those voters will do then?
Perhaps people might come to conclude that they should have argued for the benefits of immigration rather than using the issue for short-term partisan advantage?
Nevertheless...
And if racism is not in your top 3 issues for the UK - as it isn't for most people - it of course (!) does not follow that you are not concerned by racism.
You're seeing things that aren't there.
1. Is a reduction in racism in the UK in your Top 3 of Things You'd Love To See?
(i) Yes
(ii) No
2. Is 'playing the PC race card' a bigger problem in the UK than actual racism?
(i) No
(ii) Yes
I stake MY LIFE that we get more (ii) from PB Cons than Labs.
You're a PB Con so let's get rolling. Hit me.
Which of course has no relevance to anything but anyway.
Also, would the UK Government waste precious time? Would it? Can't think of any examples myself...
So the reasonable questions are
Question One: Is racism one of your very biggest concerns?
(i) Yes
(if) No
Question Two (only for those who answered Yes to question one): Do you strongly support a party?
(i) Yes
(ii) No
Question Three (only for those who answered Yes to question two): Which party.
My answers would be Yes, Yes, Tory.
Then you need to repeat that nationally and if nationally only very few of question three's respondents say Tory was the hypothesis correct.
If you have a chocolate teapot - you have chocolate to eat.
I don't think that eating useless politicians is sensible, or to be recommended.
Okay, I see your point.
Still a very small sample though. We could try an English born leader who wasn't completely and irredeemably useless as a test.
If you look at the approximately 8mn foreign born people in the UK, about 2mn are from poor members of the EU in Eastern Europe. 2mn are from countries with similar levels of income per capita to the UK or in some cases much higher (what the hell can these people be doing here?). And 4mn are from poor countries outside of the EU. You are going to get more of the last category and fewer of the first category, but the numbers won't change overall because they reflect a supply and demand imbalance in the UK labour market. All that's happened is that we've given up our own rights to live and work across Europe.
You made it perfectly clear that you are firmly with Jeremy Corbyn and the Revolutionary Communist Party in wanting a united Ireland.
Only 7% potential immunity in the most affected part of the only country in the world that was actively trying to develop herd immunity in the population.
On topic: Perhaps this is an opportunity for the LDs?
Besides which
1 a cure/vaccine for Covid-19
2 a solution to climate change
3 a deal between the UK and the EU
Would probably be higher on most people’s list.
If racism is one of your very biggest concerns, how can you possibly support the Tory Party?
Are we saying that - yet again - you are a total outlier?
Time for beer gardens to reopen in the capital?
Relative incomes is a main driver but successive governments have tried to cap it.
Demand for labour is led by the fact we are a wealthy nation that spends a lot. Age has little to do with it.
We have low unemployment because we have a flexible labour market.
Compare the UK to Italy. We are a younger country with fewer retired people but less unemployment and more migration. The complete opposite of your theory.
Seems that a couple of weeks ago you couldn't move for chaffinches and now you can't move for whitethroats. Is this my imagination?
Would tend to suggest regional differences in restrictions. Not sure that's politically palatable though.