Why wouldn;t they? There are number of homosexual right wing commentators and campaigners.
Of course there are, but a good number of other issues are drifting in the same manner away from the "social conservatives".
It is an interesting example of how the culture war evolves. Gay marriage was very divisive 10 years ago on PB, but now uncontroversial.
Who wins the votes and who wins the ideas are often quite different things.
Recently a practicising muslim Uber driver was moaning to me his daughter was having to learn about gay people at five.
He wasn't happy.
I get what you mean, religion really is a pox on the world.
Hopefully his daughter won't grow up as bigotted as he has.
I would disagree, religion has many positives, and compatible with many forms of alternative lifestyle, just slower to come round.
The international trends show age as very important as well as religious belief, education and politics. Muslim countries start from a much lower base, but even there the trend is quite strong. Bearing in mind the young median age in most Muslim countries, there is potential for a lot of social liberation.
I see in Lithuania, Russia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Lebanon and Nigeria even under 30s are not accepting of homosexuality.
So if you are homosexual in much of Eastern Europe or the Muslim world you probably want to move
Why wouldn;t they? There are number of homosexual right wing commentators and campaigners.
Of course there are, but a good number of other issues are drifting in the same manner away from the "social conservatives".
It is an interesting example of how the culture war evolves. Gay marriage was very divisive 10 years ago on PB, but now uncontroversial.
Who wins the votes and who wins the ideas are often quite different things.
Recently a practicising muslim Uber driver was moaning to me his daughter was having to learn about gay people at five.
He wasn't happy.
I get what you mean, religion really is a pox on the world.
Hopefully his daughter won't grow up as bigotted as he has.
I would disagree, religion has many positives, and compatible with many forms of alternative lifestyle, just slower to come round.
The international trends show age as very important as well as religious belief, education and politics. Muslim countries start from a much lower base, but even there the trend is quite strong. Bearing in mind the young median age in most Muslim countries, there is potential for a lot of social liberation.
I see in Lithuania, Russia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Lebanon and Nigeria even under 30s are not accepting of homosexuality.
So if you are homosexual in much of Eastern Europe or the Muslim world you probably want to move
I think it just a more underground scene there, those figure are not very different to here a couple of decades back.
He doesn't look very well there either, unfortunately I fear for his health
I agree. The evidence tends to suggest that this virus has done him serious and potentially permanent damage but he is clearly determined to fight that as best as he can.
Over the year, around 715,000 people moved to the UK (immigration) and around 403,000 people left the UK (emigration).
The increase in immigration and net migration is being driven by an increase in non-EU nationals arriving in the UK for study reasons.
Of those coming to the UK, 257,000 were arriving for formal study, with 458,000 arriving for work, family or other reasons.
EU citizens also continue to add to the UK population, with 195,000 EU citizens moving to the UK with an intention of staying 12 months or more, with 137,00 leaving the UK. This has created a net migration estimate of 58,000 for EU citizens.
Over the year, around 715,000 people moved to the UK (immigration) and around 403,000 people left the UK (emigration). The increase in immigration and net migration is being driven by an increase in non-EU nationals arriving in the UK for study reasons. Of those coming to the UK, 257,000 were arriving for formal study, with 458,000 arriving for work, family or other reasons.
We are still in the transition period with free movement
Over the year, around 715,000 people moved to the UK (immigration) and around 403,000 people left the UK (emigration). The increase in immigration and net migration is being driven by an increase in non-EU nationals arriving in the UK for study reasons. Of those coming to the UK, 257,000 were arriving for formal study, with 458,000 arriving for work, family or other reasons.
We are still in the transition period with free movement
A lot of Tongan post-grads benefiting from the transition period I see.
Off topic, if anyone has a Kindle and 99p to spare, there is a very good history of GCHQ on Amazon by Richard Aldrich. Some riveting stuff there that I didn't know about, e.g.:
- the Heath government wanted to give up our base on Cyprus, but the Americans stopped them - the traitor Prime was only caught by a fluke - the Russians spied on the Argentinian fleet during the Falklands War with high-level aircraft, and the Norwegians tapped the Russian communications and passed the info onto us - the Israelis trained the Argentinian military during the conflict.
I predict by 2024 Brexit and Covid will be distant memories in electoral terms, probably also the economic effect of both as well with quite strong growth by the end of the Parliament. It’s “culture war” subjects like this that will be most exciting the swing voter. It’s hilarious to me that bbc insiders think they’re providing a “public service“ that deserves to be financed by a mandatory wealth tax. This is not going to end well for them...
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
That has always been my thought process. I tend to drink moderately so have no concerns about the next day and I do the same calculation, but would delay driving longer if I have been drinking an unknown quantity of wine at a party.
My only doubts come about when I see these police programmes where someone is stopped with a ridiculous amount of alcohol in their system from the night before. There are three possibilities:
a) they are lying and have been drinking that day b) they should be dead from alcohol poisoning c) the above calculation is wrong
I tend to believe a), but worry I am wrong.
d) They didn't realise how much they'd drank. Easily done especially if someone introduces shots into the round of drinks. It's very easy to consume eg a few Jagerbombs or Tequilas and forget about them. Or if drinking spirits or wine not realise how much is in the drink.
Indeed so. Got the tee shirt.
Taken aback slightly - and sneakily impressed - to hear that you sometimes have 5 pints with your dinner.
I couldn't do that. Or rather I wouldn't enjoy the food much if I did.
If they announce Layla has won I won't be surprised. She seems to have made significant progress through the campaign and has been hoovering up the late voters declaring on Twitter. I expect Davey got early votes from mainly older members, so its postals vs votes on the night...
If they announce Layla has won I won't be surprised. She seems to have made significant progress through the campaign and has been hoovering up the late voters declaring on Twitter. I expect Davey got early votes from mainly older members, so its postals vs votes on the night...
He doesn't look very well there either, unfortunately I fear for his health
I agree. The evidence tends to suggest that this virus has done him serious and potentially permanent damage but he is clearly determined to fight that as best as he can.
Boris Johnson is in my view mis-characterised as lazy. He’s not lazy, he’s just not a micro manager and expects his subordinates to run with their brief. I can understand why this is seen as a fault by people who have not worked under a management style that gives high level direction only. But it’s not a fault in of itself.
His obvious fault is in the follow through, showing an excess of loyalty to under performing subordinates, which is not the same thing as being lazy. In fact when it comes to the point where he has to go into the trenches, it looks to me like he has a single mindedness to ensure he gets done what he needs to. If application is the route to repairing to his health and remaining as PM he’ll fight (and win) the next election. Sometimes application is not enough of course.
If they announce Layla has won I won't be surprised. She seems to have made significant progress through the campaign and has been hoovering up the late voters declaring on Twitter. I expect Davey got early votes from mainly older members, so its postals vs votes on the night...
I went into this thinking Moran was a bit batshit. She's done more than enough to make me happy that she'd be ok if she's won - Here we go btw. A very orange background and a very orange lectern...
If they announce Layla has won I won't be surprised. She seems to have made significant progress through the campaign and has been hoovering up the late voters declaring on Twitter. I expect Davey got early votes from mainly older members, so its postals vs votes on the night...
I backed her a bit as the odds got tempting.
I think we're onto a loser. Whether it was any sort of value or not should be revealed shortly.
Ed Davey's win is therefore the first time the more Liberal candidate has beaten the more Social Democratic candidate in a LD leadership election since Nick Clegg
I think this is one of the more overrated prospects out there. Those who achieve great political power do not tend to give it up until something external forces them to do so. I doubt that Boris Johnson will be an exception to this rule.
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
That has always been my thought process. I tend to drink moderately so have no concerns about the next day and I do the same calculation, but would delay driving longer if I have been drinking an unknown quantity of wine at a party.
My only doubts come about when I see these police programmes where someone is stopped with a ridiculous amount of alcohol in their system from the night before. There are three possibilities:
a) they are lying and have been drinking that day b) they should be dead from alcohol poisoning c) the above calculation is wrong
I tend to believe a), but worry I am wrong.
d) They didn't realise how much they'd drank. Easily done especially if someone introduces shots into the round of drinks. It's very easy to consume eg a few Jagerbombs or Tequilas and forget about them. Or if drinking spirits or wine not realise how much is in the drink.
The examples I was thinking of (and I saw one recently on TV) where the person said he had stopped drinking at about 2 am and he was multiple times over the limit in the late afternoon. When you then count back you think it just can't be possible to have had that many units inside of you and still have been alive at 3 am. So my thought processes are: is my calculation wrong, can people tolerate a lot more alcohol than I thought or is he lying because he doesn't want to admit he has been down the pub today (not that, that is going to help him)
Let's get to work, that was the right call by the Lib Dems and we can now start taking the Tories down
Yes, the guy who stood by the Tory party and voted with the Tory party for 5 years is the guy to take down the Tories.
Davey is more likely to win Tory Remainers than Moran would have been though.
As a Tory a Long Bailey Labour leadership and a Moran LD leadership would have been less of a threat to us than a Starmer Labour leadership and a Davey LD leadership will be
2.3 (ave pint) x 5 = 11.5 units. You metabolise approximately 1 unit an hour so you can compute how many units were still in your system. Probably too many to drive. The joys of WFH.
2 in the first hour and 1 per hour after that was the rule of thumb I always thought. Assuming he would have started driving at 8 to make a meeting a 9 he'd have been fine I'd have thought so long as he'd started drinking before 9pm?
The gold standard current advice is to count from when you stop drinking, and not drive till the formula says the alcohol is fully out of your system (though, of course, effective zero does not actually equate to no alcohol whatsoever in the blood)..
So for the units above drunk until 11pm, you can squeak an hour earlier, but best practice is not to drive until 10.30am.
I appreciate that's the advice on a sense of better safe than sorry but when you started and how consistently and quickly you've been drinking realistically matters.
If I were to go out at 7pm for a meal and have 5 pints between 7pm and midnight spaced evenly, then I'd think think it would be safe to drive at 8am the next morning. If I were to go out at 11pm and have 5 pints in an hour ending at midnight, then I would not.
That has always been my thought process. I tend to drink moderately so have no concerns about the next day and I do the same calculation, but would delay driving longer if I have been drinking an unknown quantity of wine at a party.
My only doubts come about when I see these police programmes where someone is stopped with a ridiculous amount of alcohol in their system from the night before. There are three possibilities:
a) they are lying and have been drinking that day b) they should be dead from alcohol poisoning c) the above calculation is wrong
I tend to believe a), but worry I am wrong.
d) They didn't realise how much they'd drank. Easily done especially if someone introduces shots into the round of drinks. It's very easy to consume eg a few Jagerbombs or Tequilas and forget about them. Or if drinking spirits or wine not realise how much is in the drink.
The examples I was thinking of (and I saw one recently on TV) where the person said he had stopped drinking at about 2 am and he was multiple times over the limit in the late afternoon. When you then count back you think it just can't be possible to have had that many units inside of you and still have been alive at 3 am. So my thought processes are: is my calculation wrong, can people tolerate a lot more alcohol than I thought or is he lying because he doesn't want to admit he has been down the pub today (not that, that is going to help him)
The body can have a very large amount of units in it and survive. It's possible to drink a litre of 40% spirits in a day and survive. Not advisable but very possible. That's enough that you should still have alcohol in your blood after not just one night's sleep but two nights sleep.
Let's get to work, that was the right call by the Lib Dems and we can now start taking the Tories down
Yes, the guy who stood by the Tory party and voted with the Tory party for 5 years is the guy to take down the Tories.
Davey is more likely to win Tory Remainers than Moran would have been though.
As a Tory a Long Bailey Labour leadership and a Moran LD leadership would have been less of a threat to us than a Starmer Labour leadership and a Davey LD leadership will be
The LibDems need to be a party of the pragmatic centre. Most punters aren't party political zealots, capable of swinging between candidates of different parties. People can see the good and bad in all parties, so the role of the centre party is to take the best ideas from the Tories and Labour and leave the ideology and the loony left/right ideas.
Which is why I am glad it is Starmer. The coalition isn't an albatross around the neck as portrayed - the party needs to own the positives and disown the negatives. The coalition happened and compared to now it was competent sane government.
The Dems screwed it up badly week. The over egged their attacks on Trump and presented them selves as holier than thou merchants. No one likes a smart arse.
But that's what they are. No one was stupid enough to use Hilary's "contemptibles" but their disdain for the poorly educated white voter who has a really hard time of it in the US, and indeed here, is palpable.
These people don't want to be lectured on diversity or sexual politics, they want jobs, security, bread on the table and, just maybe, a little bit of respect. Trump engages with them. You can argue all day as to whether or not his policies are actually good for them but he engages. I'm trying to remember the last Democrat that did: Bill Clinton probably.
It's a challenge for the left these days, and has been for at least the last 20 years. Most of us intellectual lefties got into politics because we felt that poverty was horrible and we should have policies that helped people on low incomes turn their lives around even if it means people like us paying more. (Put aside for a moment the discussion of which policies - housing, education, benefits, health - do really help.) But in Broxtowe it was simply a fact that if we focused on canvassing the areas of greatest deprivation, we would still see low turnout there, whereas if we went for the areas with lots of teachers, nurses, etc. we would get a rich harvest (and if we didn't, they'd drift to the LibDems).
Fine, that's just practical tactics. But it's a short step from that to favouring policies that help middle-class families like those teachers and nurses, and forget about families struggling on a sink estate who probably won't vote, especially as they're a shrinking share of the electorate. And yet, we're still perfectly clear that we want to give priority to the latter as they need help more urgently, and if we forget them we've actually sold our souls and the whole reason for bothering.
The converse right-wing problem is that if they want to reap a rich harvest of working-class voters attracted by populism, they risk losing the sober traditional Tories who just want a steady ship. My mother was a Tory to her bones (unless I happened to be the candidate), but she despised people like Trump and wouldn't have voted for him in a million years.
I think that most of the traditional Tory demographic will stick with the party whatever it does. There will always be a reason to. Labour's challenge is that we have totally lost sight of the values and aspirations that most voters possess. We are seen as actively opposed to them. This is Starmer's challenge. The Tories will never be ashamed of waving the falg. Too many in Labour genuinely are. This gives the Tories a huge advantage going into every election. Blair got this - and it was never an issue prior to the 1980s.
Oh come off it SO. It certainly was an issue prior to the 1980s. The point was that after the defenestration of Lansbury until the time of Foot (unfairly) it was an issue difficult to pin convincingly on the actual leadership of the party. When Laski said that Labour’s foreign policy would be controlled by the membership, Attlee shut him up sharpish. When Corbyn openly flirted with interests hostile to the UK, too many idiots in Labour applauded him.
If you doubt me, here is Robert Blake writing in 1970:
‘This then was Disraeli’s lasting contribution to the Conservative party. He made it the national party...Again and again in the years to come the Conservatives were to try and pin the label of spiritual upon first their Liberal and then their Labour opponents, and if they did not always succeed, they managed to do it often enough to make this one of their most profitable moves in the party game...Nor was it simply a trick or a gimmick. If the Left has so often found itself pilloried as the anti-National party, this is because it has so often contained members who behaved as if they were a friend of every country but their own.’
For more information on how long this has been an issue try Paul Ward, Red Flag and Union Jack: Englishness, Patriotism and the British Left, 1881-1924 (London 2011).
“The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone All centuries but this and every country but his own” was on W S Gilbert’s original little list from the Mikado.
Congrats to Ed. Seems a good guy. And congrats to those who backed him at 1.7 a few weeks ago - which I'm guessing is most of us.
From a Labour perspective I'm unsure if this is good news. It might be. But OTOH, Davey is similar to Starmer in style as a politician and therefore the two of them could have the effect of making the ghastly "Boris" brand stand out all the more. They could form the grey background curtain to the stage on which he poses and postures and prances around.
Anyone able to answer why a black man who’s t shirt is held by a policeman is shot seven times in the back whilst a 17 year old armed white can walk down the street, still armed with finger on trigger after shooting three people, two of which have died And the police do nothing?
Possibly because the white guy did have a gun and so might shoot back if you missed? Shooting unarmed people is much less risky.
Congrats to Ed. Seems a good guy. And congrats to those who backed him at 1.7 a few weeks ago - which I'm guessing is most of us.
From a Labour perspective I'm unsure if this is good news. It might be. But OTOH, Davey is similar to Starmer in style as a politician and therefore the two of them could have the effect of making the ghastly "Boris" brand stand out all the more. They could form the grey background curtain to the stage on which he poses and postures and prances around.
The muscular man of the people versus the effete Sirs? Bring it on!
Not necessarily good news for Labour. The almost total invisibility of the Liberal Democrats for the duration of their leadership race has been extremely helpful for Labour during the Covid crisis, and during the time of Starmer's ascent to a better position in the polls.
Comments
So if you are homosexual in much of Eastern Europe or the Muslim world you probably want to move
Over the year, around 715,000 people moved to the UK (immigration) and around 403,000 people left the UK (emigration).
The increase in immigration and net migration is being driven by an increase in non-EU nationals arriving in the UK for study reasons.
Of those coming to the UK, 257,000 were arriving for formal study, with 458,000 arriving for work, family or other reasons.
EU citizens also continue to add to the UK population, with 195,000 EU citizens moving to the UK with an intention of staying 12 months or more, with 137,00 leaving the UK. This has created a net migration estimate of 58,000 for EU citizens.
I predict by 2024 Brexit and Covid will be distant memories in electoral terms, probably also the economic effect of both as well with quite strong growth by the end of the Parliament. It’s “culture war” subjects like this that will be most exciting the swing voter. It’s hilarious to me that bbc insiders think they’re providing a “public service“ that deserves to be financed by a mandatory wealth tax. This is not going to end well for them...
Taken aback slightly - and sneakily impressed - to hear that you sometimes have 5 pints with your dinner.
I couldn't do that. Or rather I wouldn't enjoy the food much if I did.
His obvious fault is in the follow through, showing an excess of loyalty to under performing subordinates, which is not the same thing as being lazy. In fact when it comes to the point where he has to go into the trenches, it looks to me like he has a single mindedness to ensure he gets done what he needs to. If application is the route to repairing to his health and remaining as PM he’ll fight (and win) the next election. Sometimes application is not enough of course.
https://youtu.be/9DUdxBOwy7E
Davey 42,756
Moran 24, 564
Davey elected
Candidate
Jo Swinson
Ed Davey
Popular vote
47,997
28,021
But actually not bad turnout looking back through all previous contests.
As a Tory a Long Bailey Labour leadership and a Moran LD leadership would have been less of a threat to us than a Starmer Labour leadership and a Davey LD leadership will be
Aaron with of course, the dumbest take
DOOMED!
Which is why I am glad it is Starmer. The coalition isn't an albatross around the neck as portrayed - the party needs to own the positives and disown the negatives. The coalition happened and compared to now it was competent sane government.
Any recommendations?
All centuries but this and every country but his own” was on W S Gilbert’s original little list from the Mikado.
From a Labour perspective I'm unsure if this is good news. It might be. But OTOH, Davey is similar to Starmer in style as a politician and therefore the two of them could have the effect of making the ghastly "Boris" brand stand out all the more. They could form the grey background curtain to the stage on which he poses and postures and prances around.
What world news must then just as surely break to derail it as inevitably must happen?
Messi to Spurs.... ??
Short version, the public doesn't believe in what we believe in but we are going to listen hard to see if we can believe in something else.
Probably right of Labour economically, pro PR and pro social justice, so basically Clegg again?