Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believSouthamObserver said:
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?Richard_Tyndall said:
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.pinkrose said:Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative?Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with?
Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages?
why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.0 -
If we must cast around for a rational explanation, how about this: He is unofficially trying to perform an act of self-sacrifice by subliminally spinning the results for Labour at the further expense of his already tattered reputation. That is, reminding us indirectly that he was instrumental in creating a media firestorm over the past week, and that without his "help" Labour would clearly have been picking up further seats on its 2012 base in England, rather than losing a (mere) net 7 currently, so results have to be interpreted in that context.FrancisUrquhart said:How and why did Ken come out with the Hitler stuff again? What was he asked that required the reply "I am right about Hitler and the Jews"?
Didn't convince me either.
Irrational explanations based around self-absorbed unrepentant egotism and an addiction to media exposure abound.
0 -
And toes as well please. But many thanks. It's particularly confusing this year as the boundary changes mean an all-out election so everyone has three votes rather than the usual one.Plato_Says said:
Fingers crossed.JohnO said:
Unfortunately John O doesn't know how John O is doing as our count isn't taking place until tomorrow!!Plato_Says said:
Congrats. Anyone know how @JohnO fared?tpfkar said:I was re-elected to my council seat last night and almost doubled my majority. Very relieved as the Tories were working so hard and the ward was lost badly last year. Tories were targeting 6 gains (3 from Lab, 3 from LD and lost every one.
Seems like green shoots for Lib Dems but still desert areas where local party has disappeared, but this is the first election night in a long time that hasn't been crushing,so I guess that's progress.
Hope other Peebies who've been up for election have done well.
Hope this is not a portend of my eventual fate, but the long-serving leader (and friend) of another Surrey Borough was defeated 2-1 by a Resiodents' Association candidate. Turned a shade of grey on hearing that.
After boundary changes, my ward is highly marginal and so well, who knows......Anyway I have had a good innings.
PS Many congrats to tkpfar on a splendid result.0 -
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.pinkrose said:
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.SouthamObserver said:
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?Richard_Tyndall said:
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.pinkrose said:Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative?Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with?
Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages?
why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
What are British values anyway?0 -
-
It's probably best we don't bring Orthodox Jewish practices of segregation into this discussion I guess - though if Ken Livingstone is available for a guest thread on the subject we could probably break Vanilla inside ten minutes.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.SouthamObserver said:
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?Richard_Tyndall said:
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.pinkrose said:Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative?Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with?
Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages?
why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.0 -
Lincolnshire PCC first round
Con 39,441
UKIP 28,583
Labour 25,475
Lincs Independents 18,4970 -
Is that Hampden in Maryhill?TGOHF said:
The SNP's pet charity has deemed the word "abusive and sectarian".
http://nilbymouth.org/history/
Try shouting it at Hampden next month in the cup final..0 -
The fact that you are having to go back over 50 years to try to find something onto which to pin your hopes shows who is ignorant.justin124 said:
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.oxfordsimon said:
Would you like some more straws to clutch?justin124 said:
Of course we could also go back to the 1959 Parliament , and point out that despite having already been in power for 9/10 years the Tories managed to make significant gains from Labour at the local elections of 1960 and 1961. Despite that , Labour did win the 1964 election!Danny565 said:
What do you define as "win"? The Tories are still favourites to be biggest party, but the swing from 2011 points to a hung parliament with the Tories having to rely on the Lib Dems or Northern Ireland parties to survive.TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".Danny565 said:
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 electionScrapheap_as_was said:
#rattledDanny565 said:Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.
It is very clear that Corbyn is the first opposition leader not to make electoral progress at a local level in modern political history.
The world was very different back in the late 50s/early 60s. You know that - but are choosing to ignore it.0 -
Fingers and toes crossed John!JohnO said:
Unfortunately John O doesn't know how John O is doing as our count isn't taking place until tomorrow!!Plato_Says said:
Congrats. Anyone know how @JohnO fared?tpfkar said:I was re-elected to my council seat last night and almost doubled my majority. Very relieved as the Tories were working so hard and the ward was lost badly last year. Tories were targeting 6 gains (3 from Lab, 3 from LD and lost every one.
Seems like green shoots for Lib Dems but still desert areas where local party has disappeared, but this is the first election night in a long time that hasn't been crushing,so I guess that's progress.
Hope other Peebies who've been up for election have done well.
Hope this is not a portend of my eventual fate, but the long-serving leader (and friend) of another Surrey Borough was defeated 2-1 by a Resiodents' Association candidate. Turned a shade of grey on hearing that.
After boundary changes, my ward is highly marginal and so well, who knows......Anyway I have had a good innings.
PS Many congrats to tkpfar on a splendid result.0 -
Good luck John. We had a County by-election up here in Staffs and managed to return a Tory with a more-than doubled majority of 9.6%.JohnO said:
Unfortunately John O doesn't know how John O is doing as our count isn't taking place until tomorrow!!Plato_Says said:
Congrats. Anyone know how @JohnO fared?tpfkar said:I was re-elected to my council seat last night and almost doubled my majority. Very relieved as the Tories were working so hard and the ward was lost badly last year. Tories were targeting 6 gains (3 from Lab, 3 from LD and lost every one.
Seems like green shoots for Lib Dems but still desert areas where local party has disappeared, but this is the first election night in a long time that hasn't been crushing,so I guess that's progress.
Hope other Peebies who've been up for election have done well.
Hope this is not a portend of my eventual fate, but the long-serving leader (and friend) of another Surrey Borough was defeated 2-1 by a Resiodents' Association candidate. Turned a shade of grey on hearing that.
After boundary changes, my ward is highly marginal and so well, who knows......Anyway I have had a good innings.
PS Many congrats to tkpfar on a splendid result.0 -
Everything is crossed.JohnO said:
And toes as well please. But many thanks. It's particularly confusing this year as the boundary changes mean an all-out election so everyone has three votes rather than the usual one.Plato_Says said:
Fingers crossed.JohnO said:
Unfortunately John O doesn't know how John O is doing as our count isn't taking place until tomorrow!!Plato_Says said:
Congrats. Anyone know how @JohnO fared?tpfkar said:I was re-elected to my council seat last night and almost doubled my majority. Very relieved as the Tories were working so hard and the ward was lost badly last year. Tories were targeting 6 gains (3 from Lab, 3 from LD and lost every one.
Seems like green shoots for Lib Dems but still desert areas where local party has disappeared, but this is the first election night in a long time that hasn't been crushing,so I guess that's progress.
Hope other Peebies who've been up for election have done well.
Hope this is not a portend of my eventual fate, but the long-serving leader (and friend) of another Surrey Borough was defeated 2-1 by a Resiodents' Association candidate. Turned a shade of grey on hearing that.
After boundary changes, my ward is highly marginal and so well, who knows......Anyway I have had a good innings.
PS Many congrats to tkpfar on a splendid result.0 -
Delaying the Chilcott report to enable Blair to speak on the referendum, may backfire IMHO.
The families of the dead and disabled could be a very emotive force the moment Blair steps forward.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/667643/David-Cameron-Iraq-probe-Brexit-embarrassing-European-Union-EU-Tony-Blair0 -
It is amazing how deluded some people are.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
MaxPB said:
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.pinkrose said:
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.SouthamObserver said:
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?Richard_Tyndall said:
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.pinkrose said:Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative?Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with?
Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages?
why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
What are British values anyway?
Now I get it, your version of British values= gender segregation is fine if youre a white, upper class privilleged millionaire paying £30k plus per year for an education but not for Muslims. Then Islamic gender segregation is against "British values".
okay got it.0 -
Pass the popcorn.oxfordsimon said:
It is amazing how deluded some people are.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).0
-
I wonder if Vera Baird will stop the senior coppers in Northumbria Constabulary from thumping / humping each other this time round?AndreaParma_82 said:Northumbria PCC - Labour hold on first prefs
Cleveland PCC - Round II between Lab and Con0 -
As Nan Tate would say..."What a load of old bollocks...:"TheScreamingEagles said:0
-
Good luck John O. I hope you are not one of those who lost at these local elections in England. An own goal in the timings and tactics.0
-
Chuckle.SandyRentool said:
I wonder if Vera Baird will stop the senior coppers in Northumbria Constabulary from thumping / humping each other this time round?AndreaParma_82 said:Northumbria PCC - Labour hold on first prefs
Cleveland PCC - Round II between Lab and Con
0 -
They're only on the TV because Justin wasn't available.TheScreamingEagles said:
Are you really saying John Curtice and Michael Thrasher do not have a clue?justin124 said:
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.oxfordsimon said:
Would you like some more straws to clutch?justin124 said:
Of course we could also go back to the 1959 Parliament , and point out that despite having already been in power for 9/10 years the Tories managed to make significant gains from Labour at the local elections of 1960 and 1961. Despite that , Labour did win the 1964 election!Danny565 said:
What do you define as "win"? The Tories are still favourites to be biggest party, but the swing from 2011 points to a hung parliament with the Tories having to rely on the Lib Dems or Northern Ireland parties to survive.TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".Danny565 said:
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 electionScrapheap_as_was said:
#rattledDanny565 said:Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.0 -
The fact that you can't accept that the gender segregation within Muslim communities is of a completely different nature shows that you are just trollingpinkrose said:MaxPB said:
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.pinkrose said:
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.SouthamObserver said:
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?Richard_Tyndall said:
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.pinkrose said:Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative?Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with?
Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages?
why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
What are British values anyway?
Now I get it, your version of British values= gender segregation is fine if youre a white, upper class privilleged millionaire paying £30k plus per year for an education but not for Muslims. Then Islamic gender segregation is against "British values".
okay got it.0 -
LibDem takes a ward in Knowsley. So some opposition there too
First 2 declarations in Rotherham are split wards
2 UKIP 1 Lab in one
2 Lab 1 UKIP in the second0 -
Lab's Scottish MP: "Labour under Corbyn not credible"0
-
@iainmartin1: Amusingly, Scottish hacks told to turn up to hear statement from The Great Leader, then no questions. I wonder why?!0
-
oxfordsimon said:
Hits the nail on the head.pinkrose said:
The fact that you can't accept that the gender segregation within Muslim communities is of a completely different nature shows that you are just trollingMaxPB said:pinkrose said:
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.Sean_F said:
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??SouthamObserver said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.Richard_Tyndall said:
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?pinkrose said:Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative?Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with?
Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages?
why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes........
What are British values anyway?
Now I get it, your version of British values= gender segregation is fine if youre a white, upper class privilleged millionaire paying £30k plus per year for an education but not for Muslims. Then Islamic gender segregation is against "British values".
okay got it.0 -
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
0 -
Best of luck Mr OJohnO said:Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).
Under your masterful stewardship, Elmbridge comfortably eat Buckinghamshire for most tax paid per head of any place anywhere in the world, yet again.
Amateurs.0 -
.
Ooh, that's encouraging.AndreaParma_82 said:LibDem takes a ward in Knowsley. So some opposition there too
First 2 declarations in Rotherham are split wards
2 UKIP 1 Lab in one
2 Lab 1 UKIP in the second0 -
Speaking of school... do your mum and dad know you are bunking off today?pinkrose said:MaxPB said:
And people wonder why Labour are getting shat on everywhere.pinkrose said:
Half the cabinet including the Prime Minister and Chancellor and the Royal family attended single sex schools are they not adhering to "British values"??Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.SouthamObserver said:
I agree, but doesn't that also apply to golf clubs etc that refuse to allow women members?Richard_Tyndall said:
If that actually were the case then it has no place in Britain.pinkrose said:Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
whats the alternative?Layne said:Interesting to see left wingers down thread saying we should take a "live and let live" approach to women being second class citizens in their own homes. How far the left has fallen.
how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with?
Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages?
why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
Gender segregation is a fundamental part of Islam because of it's strict moral codes. Its not extremism its mainstream Islam. Trevor Philips was 100% accurate when he said Islam will not change and Muslims are different to other minority groups and they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
I do not actually accept your definitions so and do consider gender segregation to be extremism. It doesn't matter whether it is mainstream islam or not, it is extremist as far as what is acceptable in British society. We should not change our rules and our societal norms to tolerate religious extremism.
What are British values anyway?
Now I get it, your version of British values= gender segregation is fine if youre a white, upper class privilleged millionaire paying £30k plus per year for an education but not for Muslims. Then Islamic gender segregation is against "British values".
okay got it.0 -
All three parties are in competition for the unionist or non-SNP vote. It's a "What if?" but I suspect Labour would be in a better position if Jim Murphy had had the time to make his mark. Ruth Davidson is one of the sharpest political operators anywhere in the UK. Maybe better even than Nicola Sturgeon.TCPoliticalBetting said:Q: Are the good results for the Scottish Conservatives and the ok results for Scottish LDs due to their efforts or is it more a result of the fall of SLAB?
0 -
More declarations from Rotherham
3 Lab (council leader re-elected)0 -
Curtice predicting a 57-43 win for Khan, based on more than half the votes counted. Berry third. Galloway behind Women's Equality.0
-
Nicola Sturgeon rode to power on the coat tails of Alex Salmond. What are her actual achievements - Salmond managed to win a parliamentary majority in 2011 which Sturgeon has promptly lost.FF43 said:
All three parties are in competition for the unionist or non-SNP vote. It's a "What if?" but I suspect Labour would be in a better position if Jim Murphy had had the time to make his mark. Ruth Davidson is one of the sharpest political operators anywhere in the UK. Maybe better even than Nicola Sturgeon.TCPoliticalBetting said:Q: Are the good results for the Scottish Conservatives and the ok results for Scottish LDs due to their efforts or is it more a result of the fall of SLAB?
0 -
Humiliating.NickPalmer said:Curtice predicting a 57-43 win for Khan, based on more than half the votes counted. Berry third. Galloway behind Women's Equality.
0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3576624/Facebook-prankster-Speedo-Shy-caused-190-worth-damage-danced-naked-self-service-tills-Asda-posted-video-online.html
What a tool. I hope we aren't paying for his legal representation.0 -
Pollsters cracking open the champagne tonight.NickPalmer said:Curtice predicting a 57-43 win for Khan, based on more than half the votes counted. Berry third. Galloway behind Women's Equality.
0 -
I am telling the RO to speed up. Or wait to declare in the middle of Khan's London declaration going live on TVJohnO said:
Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).
0 -
Slab just seem to have managed a catastrophic failure and then decided what the voters wanted was more left wing policies and an ambiguous position on independence. Oh and a novice as Leader.Plato_Says said:
Aren't all wins ultimately down to the fall of their rivals?TCPoliticalBetting said:Q: Are the good results for the Scottish Conservatives and the ok results for Scottish LDs due to their efforts or is it more a result of the fall of SLAB?
0 -
I'll leave you to your lost majority butt hurt divs ...Theuniondivvie said:
Is that Hampden in Maryhill?0 -
It's just par for the course with London.kle4 said:
Humiliating.NickPalmer said:Curtice predicting a 57-43 win for Khan, based on more than half the votes counted. Berry third. Galloway behind Women's Equality.
Boris has been an exception.0 -
Surely the real point of any comparison with prior results is that right now the Tory party is tearing itself into at least 2 pieces, that a significant portion of the party are calling the duo who only last year won them a surprising majority names completely inappropriate for a family blog like this and if anybody is minding the shop rather than playing referendum games they are doing a damn good job of hiding it.
I mean, if not now, when?0 -
I understand your point , but tactical voting - probably less likely anyway for a Westminster election - is not probable when all three main candidates have in excess of 30% of the vote.When the UK government is at stake I would frankly find it difficult to imagine Labour voters voting Tory and run the risk of helping to keep a Tory PM in office.Realistically, I would have thought that Labour could aim for 25 - to 30% in Scotland in 2020. If so, seats such as Eastwood would certainly come back into play. Strangely enough yesterday's Tory success may have done Labour a favour further down the road.Much - if not all - of the higher Tory vote could be Tory tactical voters who had voted SNP in recent years returning home in the face of the real threat of Independence.Now that the bubble of SNP invincibility has been burst quite effectively, it will not be too surprising if former Labour voters follow the return path too as the SNP administration increasingly has to stand on its record.DavidL said:
Jim Murphy did comparatively well in that seat because he got a lot of tactical Tory support. Last night showed what happened when that stopped.justin124 said:
But Eastwood was close to being a three-way split and is the SNP seat most vulnerable to Labour based on 2015 results. Apparently there is also a strong Jewish community there which might have reacted to Livingstone's ramblings.Ceteris paribus Labour tends to do a bit better at Westminster elections than Holyrood. Having managed 22.5% in the constituency vote yesterday surely makes it likely that had it been a Westminster election Labour would have reached 25%.DavidL said:
Good chance of 3 more I would say. 2 more in the borders, one each side of Mundell and the Eastwood equivalent where the Labour vote will get squeezed even tighter now it is clear who the Unionist is. Edinburgh and Aberdeenshire look a lot trickier.taffys said:
It's a long way off but how might the tories' Scottish boost translate into Westminster seats Mr L - an extra one or two?DavidL said:Ruth is a goddess. That is all we know and all we need to know.
So much of Scottish politics at the moment is about identifying who the opposition to the SNP is. Once that becomes clear we see strong tactical voting to the challenger's advantage. With the right candidate the Labour vote in that seat will be very soft. The problem for Scotland is the huge swathe of seats where Labour was previously dominant, is now collapsing and there is no alternative. These seats look very safe indeed.0 -
I think it would mostly remind me of my days in the (clearly very un-British) evangelical portion of the Church of England.Beverley_C said:
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?0 -
@AgentP22: Ooft, that's gotta hurt! https://t.co/hli7z6nZEY0
-
chestnut said:
It's just par for the course with London.kle4 said:
Humiliating.NickPalmer said:Curtice predicting a 57-43 win for Khan, based on more than half the votes counted. Berry third. Galloway behind Women's Equality.
Boris has been an exception.
The interesting stuff is the Assembly vote - can Labour make gains here?0 -
Two big shorteners in the leadership betting (at least at bet365) based on the overnights: Stephen Crabb & John McDonnell.0
-
@PolhomeEditor: Why does Wings hate Scotland? https://t.co/vDT7mC0dLO0
-
Doffs cap respectfully to A Local Resident!taffys said:
Best of luck Mr OJohnO said:Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).
Under your masterful stewardship, Elmbridge comfortably eat Buckinghamshire for most tax paid per head of any place anywhere in the world, yet again.
Amateurs.
Purely anecdotally and could easily be mistaken, it appears that turnout has been at the lower end of the 'normal' 33-36% (next door Runnymede saw an appreciable decline). Other things being equal (er, ahem), that is probably not helpful to us blue lovelies. We shall see.0 -
let me try to make it clear:Beverley_C said:
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
Are you a muslim woman?
Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc0 -
Depends. Will Postal votes supply enough Conservatives?JohnO said:
Doffs cap respectfully to A Local Resident!taffys said:
Best of luck Mr OJohnO said:Thanks to all for your best wishes. Will post the result, possibly in an advanced state of intoxication, tomorrow afternoon (though I expect Andrea or Mark Senior will announce it two seconds after the Returning Officer).
Under your masterful stewardship, Elmbridge comfortably eat Buckinghamshire for most tax paid per head of any place anywhere in the world, yet again.
Amateurs.
Purely anecdotally and could easily be mistaken, it appears that turnout has been at the lower end of the 'normal' 33-36% (next door Runnymede saw an appreciable decline). Other things being equal (er, ahem), that is probably not helpful to us blue lovelies. We shall see.
0 -
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shortcuts/2016/may/06/apocalypse-kernow-cornish-speakers-westminster-cuts-language-cornwall
In other news, another threat to the British way of life is taken down.
0 -
Tickett: "the country wants unity around the [Labour] leadership".
Hilarious.
0 -
Natalie McGarry appears to have her foot, permanently stuck in her gob.Scott_P said:@AgentP22: Ooft, that's gotta hurt! https://t.co/hli7z6nZEY
0 -
"if anybody is minding the shop rather than playing referendum games they are doing a damn good job of hiding it."DavidL said:Surely the real point of any comparison with prior results is that right now the Tory party is tearing itself into at least 2 pieces, that a significant portion of the party are calling the duo who only last year won them a surprising majority names completely inappropriate for a family blog like this and if anybody is minding the shop rather than playing referendum games they are doing a damn good job of hiding it. I mean, if not now, when?
That I agree with. But why pick this timing? May be it was set out months in advance based on when key things such as POTUS visit was scheduled? If so, that back fired.
0 -
Tickett: "you are a respectable journalist" - to Mardel as he reads out the quote from Scots Lab MP.
0 -
That makes the assumption that in a patriarchal society women are practising their religion purely by choice, and in the way that they see fit.pinkrose said:
let me try to make it clear:Beverley_C said:
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
Are you a muslim woman?
Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
0 -
Judging by the girls in headscarves I see at Waterloo (full make up, heels etc), muslim women can;t wait to 'freemix (to use your disgusting phrase).pinkrose said:
let me try to make it clear:Beverley_C said:
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
Are you a muslim woman?
Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
And that's what really worries you boys, isn;t it. You can't cut the mustard. Hence the need for Mosque 'rules'.
LOL0 -
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islampinkrose said:
let me try to make it clear:Beverley_C said:
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
Are you a muslim woman?
Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the culture of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.0 -
No I am not - though I do not think the likes of Laura Kuensberg do - nor indeed most politicians. I am confident that, if given the opportunity of drawing Curtice & Thrasher's attention to these earlier examples , they would accept the point.These are historical electoral facts - I am not making them up! For whatever reason, they have decided on a starting point of 1973/74 Reform of Local Government and for reasons best known to themselves have chosen to ignore earlier data. In no way does that make it invalid to refer to the earlier results.TheScreamingEagles said:
Are you really saying John Curtice and Michael Thrasher do not have a clue?justin124 said:
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.oxfordsimon said:
Would you like some more straws to clutch?justin124 said:
Of course we could also go back to the 1959 Parliament , and point out that despite having already been in power for 9/10 years the Tories managed to make significant gains from Labour at the local elections of 1960 and 1961. Despite that , Labour did win the 1964 election!Danny565 said:
What do you define as "win"? The Tories are still favourites to be biggest party, but the swing from 2011 points to a hung parliament with the Tories having to rely on the Lib Dems or Northern Ireland parties to survive.TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".Danny565 said:
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 electionScrapheap_as_was said:
#rattledDanny565 said:Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.
I may try to send them an email on this - because it is seriously misleading.If political anoraks on here are swallowing that line what hope is there for the public at large?0 -
how can I see the % in that London counting update?0
-
I thought after last night today would be a bit dull, but watching Zoomers progress through the stages of grief on Twitter has proved most enjoyable0
-
Your characterisation of Christianity (in what I assume to mean the 19th century?) is unfair. The theory of the 'Sons of Ham', was imo simply an attempt by some in a Christian country to square beliefs about the inferiority of black people with the prevalent faith. Racism and ethnocentrism rose to pre-eminence in the 19th century in spite of Christianity not because of it - in fact they owe a great deal more to Darwinism and other contemporary popular science. The anti-slavery movement was a nonconformist Christian movement - 'Am I not a man and a brother?'. The racist trend characterised by Thomas Carlyle was often profoundly anti-religious - it was counter-religious.Beverley_C said:
At one point in history, Europeans and Christians used to tell Africans and others that God had made the white man "superior" to other races - look up William Tappan Thompson for an example.pinkrose said:
whats the alternative?
how are you going to enforce some mythical "equality" that Islamophobes use as a metaphorical stick to beat Muslims with?
The interpretation of Christianity needed to change and it did. Perhaps Islam needs to do the same and adapt to a more modern world. Religion should never be used for the subjugation of others, but sadly it frequently has been.
Why not? The state already does. Harrassment, assault, martial rape, etc are already illegal. Being married does not absolve you from obeying the law.pinkrose said:
Do you really want the state to interfere in people's marriages?
Because there is plenty of evidence that a significant number are kept isolated, uneducated and controlled. There are plenty of muslim women turning up dead or beaten or removed abroad and forced into unwanted marriages.pinkrose said:
why do you assume that muslim women are weak?
No.pinkrose said:... they will never "integrate" in the way you want them to. Just accept it and live and let live.
Why should any women accept that her lot in life is to be a third-rate punch bag, to be beaten, raped, traded or killed for nothing more than wanting her own freedom?0 -
The https://www.londonelects.org.uk/im-voter/election-results/live-count-progress-2016 site gives a really good picture ward by ward, showing among other things that Khan and Labour have extremely similar votes in each ward, so most people just voted party preference.
An exception is Barnet and Camden, where Goldsmith is clearly ahead but Dismore looks like holding the Assembly seat for Labour. Dismore is one of the most popular Labour people among Jewish voters, not especially for a high profile on Israel but just because of hard work in his patch for ages. Havering and redbridge is an exception the other way, with Goldsmith ahead but the Assembly seat looking a total toss-up. Dixie looks to have been mistaken about Merton, which is leaning Labour. In my Northeast sector, the Tories have only just squeaked into 2nd place ahead of the Greens, with Labour ahead by nearly a 4-1 margin.0 -
Well Islam has been practised since the 7th century and is part of modern Britain. Its not going anywhere and is not only here to stay but is growing due to demographics, converts and immigration.oxfordsimon said:
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islampinkrose said:
let me try to make it clear:Beverley_C said:
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
Are you a muslim woman?
Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the cultural of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
As Trevor Philips say, Islam will not change and Muslims will not integrate how other minorities have done in the past. So it really doesn't matter what non muslims think or say, as long as Muslims are not breaking the law, live and let live.0 -
I'm sure thats what the Catholics thought before reformation when they were burning witches and holding inquisitions.pinkrose said:
Well Islam has been practised since the 7th century and is part of modern Britain. Its not going anywhere and is not only here to stay to but is growing due to demographics, converts and immigration.oxfordsimon said:
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islampinkrose said:
let me try to make it clear:Beverley_C said:
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
Are you a muslim woman?
Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the cultural of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
As Trevor Philips say, Islam will not change and Muslims will not integrate how other minorities have done in the past. So it really doesn't matter what non muslims think or say, as long as Muslims are not breaking the law, live and let live.0 -
Quite an achievement from Davidson that she should personally feel justly proud. Let’s not forget that only last year in the general election her party recorded its worst share of the vote since records began.
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/snp-won-election-biggest-story-success-ruth-davidson
And so that reversal of fortunes, which she has undoubtedly presided over, can be squarely pinned on a successful campaign that at times may have seemed to hang on the flimsy principle of the more ridiculous the photo opp the better, but actually had so much more to it.
It had Davidson and she is clearly a vote winner. And what Davidson had was a simple, clear and consistent message – the Tories would be the opposition to the SNP and that she would protect the Union. That claim never wavered and who wouldn’t believe a woman who can ride a buffalo and drive a tank?0 -
I was not implying that ALL christians thought that way, but SOME definitely used those arguments. It is a sad fact that the messages of hope and tolerance that are contained in many religions are often subverted to their polar opposites by unusually vocal sections of the congregrations.Luckyguy1983 said:Your characterisation of Christianity (in what I assume to mean the 19th century?) is unfair.
0 -
-
Och, a mere pinprick compared to the state of your book on Zac.TGOHF said:
I'll leave you to your lost majority butt hurt divs ...Theuniondivvie said:
Is that Hampden in Maryhill?0 -
But Muslims are breaking the law - and their crimes are not being investigated/prosecuted because of 'cultural norms'pinkrose said:
Well Islam has been practised since the 7th century and is part of modern Britain. Its not going anywhere and is not only here to stay but is growing due to demographics, converts and immigration.oxfordsimon said:
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islampinkrose said:
let me try to make it clear:Beverley_C said:
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
Are you a muslim woman?
Are you married to a muslim man?
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Muslim women are believers in Islam. Practicisng muslim women follow the rules set out in Islam by choice.
No-one is telling you what to do and at the same time you cannot tell Muslim women that they cannot act in accordance with their faith ie wearing jilbab and hijab or niqab, only marrying muslim men, not freemixing etc etc
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the cultural of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
As Trevor Philips say, Islam will not change and Muslims will not integrate how other minorities have done in the past. So it really doesn't matter what non muslims think or say, as long as Muslims are not breaking the law, live and let live.
And yes, this does extend to honour killings and related violence.
We need to be honest about this - and find ways so that our criminal justice system takes no notice of faith and just brings perpetrators to trial.0 -
I've told you before why they use post 1973/74 onwards.justin124 said:No I am not - though I do not think the likes of Laura Kuensberg do - nor indeed most politicians. I am confident that, if given the opportunity of drawing Curtice & Thrasher's attention to these earlier examples , they would accept the point.These are historical electoral facts - I am not making them up! For whatever reason, they have decided on a starting point of 1973/74 Reform of Local Government and for reasons best known to themselves have chosen to ignore earlier data. In no way does that make it invalid to refer to the earlier results.
I may try to send them an email on this - because it is seriously misleading.If political anoraks on here are swallowing that line what hope is there for the public at large?.
Prior to that there were many more council seats up for election, and you can't extrapolate accurate NESV prior to 73/74.
Post 1973/74 Council seat losses/gains combined with NESV gives much more accurate barometer for future general election predictions.
But Rallings, Thrasher, and Curtice have only been studying this for decades, what do they know?0 -
oxfordsimon said:justin124 said:
Certainly the world was different , but there is no particular reason to believe that local election results a year into a Parliament were any less likely to be leading indicators of the following General Election than they are today.To be honest, I do not believe these results tell much at all - one way or the other. That was also true in 2011 - and indeed in 1960/61. I am simply taking the logic of comments made here and applying the same logic to earlier sets of local election results. - but the idea that these results pretty well set in stone the result of a General Election 4 years away is bonkers -as was true of those earlier years.oxfordsimon said:
The fact that you are having to go back over 50 years to try to find something onto which to pin your hopes shows who is ignorant.justin124 said:
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.Danny565 said:
blockquote>TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".Danny565 said:
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 electionScrapheap_as_was said:
#rattledDanny565 said:Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.
Would you like some more straws to clutch?
It is very clear that Corbyn is the first opposition leader not to make electoral progress at a local level in modern political history.
The world was very different back in the late 50s/early 60s. You know that - but are choosing to ignore it.0 -
I have acted as a psephologist for BBC Local Radio stations for both General and Local Elections.felix said:
They're only on the TV because Justin wasn't available.TheScreamingEagles said:
Are you really saying John Curtice and Michael Thrasher do not have a clue?justin124 said:
How many other opportunities would you like to display your ignorance of electoral precedents?. You appear very happy to align yourself with media commentators who by and large do not have a clue.oxfordsimon said:
Would you like some more straws to clutch?justin124 said:
Of course we could also go back to the 1959 Parliament , and point out that despite having already been in power for 9/10 years the Tories managed to make significant gains from Labour at the local elections of 1960 and 1961. Despite that , Labour did win the 1964 election!Danny565 said:
What do you define as "win"? The Tories are still favourites to be biggest party, but the swing from 2011 points to a hung parliament with the Tories having to rely on the Lib Dems or Northern Ireland parties to survive.TheWhiteRabbit said:
There's a difference between "walkover" and "win".Danny565 said:
Except I was one of the most pessimistic Labourites on PB in the run-up to the 2015 electionScrapheap_as_was said:
#rattledDanny565 said:Just to say, it appears there has been a small swing TO LABOUR in England compared to this point in the last parliament (2011).
That points to a hung parliament in 2020. I'm sure the Tories will carry on being obliviously complacent though.
While these results are hardly spectacular for Labour, they simply do not AT ALL support the theory that 2020 is going to be a walkover for the Tories. Remember, they barely scraped over the majority line last year, and they now look to have deteriorated since this point in the last parliament.
Even Corbyn is talking of "holding on". Benn says there's a long way to go, etc, etc.0 -
Absolutely delighted the Blue Team came runners up in Scotland, even though they came fractionally behind Labour on the popular vote.0
-
Oh I see... because I am a white, non-muslim woman I should just shut the f*** up because having my muslim friend sit in tears describing the utter s**t she and her sister have to put up with is none of my business?pinkrose said:
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Basically, I should look the other way and pay no attention? Walk on by....
Your views would do credit to some of the biggest slimebags in human history, but they have no place in the modern world.
0 -
No they didn't the Tories got 1,025,000 votes overall vs Labour's 950,000 votes. Labour only won the FPTP vote, they lost handily in the list vote.Sunil_Prasannan said:Absolutely delighted the Blue Team came runners up in Scotland, even though they came fractionally behind Labour on the popular vote.
0 -
Scotland's a far more enlightened country than England; progressive, tolerant, it has no truck with the Tor - ......sorry, what's that you say? 34 seats and the main opposition at Holyrood?
Maybe Scots will come down off their high horses now.
Well done Ruth, quite a feat. I was struck by how filled Twitter was last night with young and trendy Twitter types airing their support for Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives. Most unusual.0 -
@paulwaugh: Jeremy Corbyn WILL be joining Sadiq Khan for victory celebrations if he wins the London mayoralty: https://t.co/ZxytUpNhS90
-
oxfordsimon said:
What evidence do you have that Muslims are breaking the law and not being investigated or prosecuted because of cultural norms?pinkrose said:
But Muslims are breaking the law - and their crimes are not being investigated/prosecuted because of 'cultural norms'oxfordsimon said:
Well Islam has been practised since the 7th century and is part of modern Britain. Its not going anywhere and is not only here to stay but is growing due to demographics, converts and immigration.pinkrose said:Beverley_C said:
There is a huge difference between having a singe-sex school or club and believing that half of the human race is inferior just because they lack a willy. I do not see the two as comparable in any way.Sean_F said:
In fact, non-Muslims have single-sex schools, colleges, and loads of single-sex clubs and societies. I see no reason why they should be outlawed. If people wish to socialise with members of the same sex, or believe their child will benefit from a single sex education, I say let them.
Why should I let any man tell me what I can wear, who I can marry, who I can talk to, and where I can go? How would YOU feel if you were subjected to that?
The fact that there are rules about what women have to wear and who they can interact with shows the problem with Islam
Acting in accordance with a set of archaic rules - drawn up by men to control women - does not strike me as something anyone should accept. And given the cultural of oppression, it is clearly not the case that all Muslim women are acting on their free will.
Any faith that condones honour violence is not one that deserves respect.
As Trevor Philips say, Islam will not change and Muslims will not integrate how other minorities have done in the past. So it really doesn't matter what non muslims think or say, as long as Muslims are not breaking the law, live and let live.
And yes, this does extend to honour killings and related violence.
We need to be honest about this - and find ways so that our criminal justice system takes no notice of faith and just brings perpetrators to trial.
Im talking about now in 2016. Rotherham and other sex abuse scandals are a failure of police and social services in the past. But men of all races and religions have committed sex abuse scandals that have been covered up or not investigated...Jimmy Saville, catholic priests, politicians, care workers?
My posts today have been in relation to someone originally saying that guidelines issued by a mosque are "appallingly subjugating muslim women" which is just wrong.0 -
I thought Khan was going to stand up to extremists?Scott_P said:@paulwaugh: Jeremy Corbyn WILL be joining Sadiq Khan for victory celebrations if he wins the London mayoralty: https://t.co/ZxytUpNhS9
0 -
@MichaelLCrick: West Yorkshire & Derbyshire police forces tell #c4news they will go to court to seek time extensions on election expense allegations0
-
Welsh Labour could be in for a massive beat down next time out, they have hung on by the skin of their teeth in loads of constituencies. If the referendum hadn't split the Tories and UKIP didn't have their heads up their own arses it would have been very bad for Labour in Wales. Next time out itay be devastating for them like it has been on Scotland.0
-
The Tories are antithesis of enlightenment, progress and tolerance? Ok, if you say so.KentRising said:Scotland's a far more enlightened country than England; progressive, tolerant, it has no truck with the Tor - ......sorry, what's that you say? 34 seats and the main opposition at Holyrood?
Maybe Scots will come down off their high horses now.
Well done Ruth, quite a feat. I was struck by how filled Twitter was last night with young and trendy Twitter types airing their support for Ruth and the Scottish Conservatives. Most unusual.0 -
Lol.FrancisUrquhart said:
I thought Khan was going to stand up to extremists?Scott_P said:@paulwaugh: Jeremy Corbyn WILL be joining Sadiq Khan for victory celebrations if he wins the London mayoralty: https://t.co/ZxytUpNhS9
0 -
Life is obviously far too complicated for Alastair Meeks.
Salmond ran the Scottish Parliament and rings round the opposition with but 47 seats. Sturgeon will manage the same with 63. Also the Greens have just stated that they will support a peoples demand for a referendum - exactly the same language as Sturgeon. Finally 47 per cent in a multi-party election is strong stuff from the Nats.0 -
Provisionally it looks to me as though Labour will gain Merton but just miss out on Redbridge, though either could still flip. Croydon and Sutton fairly close but a Tory hold. The d'Hondt London-wide seats are anyone's guess, but my guess is that Labour will pick up 1, for a total of 14/25. The 2012 result was already the best for Labour since the Assembly was set up, but having a majority would be a nice backup for Khan.0
-
http://democracy.portsmouth.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=5&RPID=501542603SandraM said:I would question the Nick Palmer line that Labour is holding up surprisingly well in the South. In the Havant Borough two seats have switched from Labour to UKIP and in Portsmouth (which is still being counted last I checked) Labour was admitting that it was losing a lot of votes to UKIP.
The Tories went into the elections confident of bolstering their numbers from 19 to 22, which would have been able majority of the 42 seats available on the majority.
But the Lib Dems held their grip on seats in the south - aside from a Labour gain in Charles Dickens which went down to the wire. And Labour kept hold of their Paulsgrove seat, despite early talk of Ukip bagging a victory in the ward.
It ended up being a poor night for Ukip in the end, as the party failed to make any gains and remain with four councillors.0 -
0
-
Oh dear - the bog-cutting issue might not have been solved:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0506/786542-vote-for-taoiseach/
0 -
Losing seats is good ? Right..scotslass said:Life is obviously far too complicated for Alastair Meeks.
Salmond ran the Scottish Parliament and rings round the opposition with but 47 seats. Sturgeon will manage the same with 63. Also the Greens have just stated that they will support a peoples demand for a referendum - exactly the same language as Sturgeon. Finally 47 per cent in a multi-party election is strong stuff from the Nats.0 -
http://www.scotsman.com/news/holyrood-2016-odds-for-indyref-2-increase-1-412081
"THE ODDS of an independent Scotland have taken a nosedive after the SNP lost their majority at Holyrood in the election, according to bookmaker Ladbrokes."
"Matthew Shaddick of Ladbrokes said: “A pretty bad night for Labour in Scotland, but also a costly one for those backing an SNP majority and the chances of an independent Scotland any time soon.”
The odds of a another independence referendum before 2020 are now 5/1, with 10/1 odds of Scots voting Yes in such a scenario."0 -
WOW!!Beverley_C said:
Oh I see... because I am a white, non-muslim woman I should just shut the f*** up because having my muslim friend sit in tears describing the utter s**t she and her sister have to put up with is none of my business?pinkrose said:
If the answer to both is no then no-one is telling you what you can wear, who you can marry, who you can talk to and where you can go.
Basically, I should look the other way and pay no attention? Walk on by....
Your views would do credit to some of the biggest slimebags in human history, but they have no place in the modern world.
Calm down, you are a bit ott!
No-one has told you to shut the f up. Ive been to the point and challenged what you say in a polite way. If your muslim friends have experienced what you say then that is terrible but women of all colours, creeds experience oppression and abuse.
It seems to me you have an issue with Muslim men and there are some bad ones in society but there are bad men and women of all faiths and none. I am a white convert married to an Algerian man, who is wonderful and he gives me my rights and fulfills his responsibilities in Islam towards me and i do the same in return.
Dont get bitter and hateful, it wont be of any help to your friends. All the best.0 -
Indeed. Boris had a big personal vote, was well-known before running for mayor and transcended the Tory party. It's the only way a Tory gets elected mayor in Labour London.chestnut said:
It's just par for the course with London.kle4 said:
Humiliating.NickPalmer said:Curtice predicting a 57-43 win for Khan, based on more than half the votes counted. Berry third. Galloway behind Women's Equality.
Boris has been an exception.
Most people don't know who Zac Goldsmith is, if they do it is that he's a privileged rich boy (without any of Boris's personality) and/or that his campaign has been negative and potentially bringing race into it (according to media stories). End result: Labour win with ease in a Labour city.0 -
Turnips of the wrong type have been elected you mean, but victory is still for SNP , all others are alsorans. No change here.Scott_P said:
Yes, the turnips should be humble this morning.FF43 said:If anyone doubted Ruth Davidson's skills as a political operator, they should revise their opinions now.
No sign of it so far, although Zoomers are quieter on Twitter, and Wings is having a nervous breakdown. Joyous. And Civic.0 -
I am sure the NESV could still be done for those earlier years but a significantly different model to arrive at the result would be needed. Because the results now go some way back they have little inclination to invest the necessary time and resources. Nevertheless it would not be that difficult for them to check that in 1960 and 1961 the Labour Opposition party lost several hundred seats to Macmillan's Tory Govt. We don't need NESV to establish that! Similarly Labour made big gains at the 1952 locals but still failed to win the 1955 election. At the May 1970 locals Labour gained circa 500 seats from the Tories but still lost the General Election five weeks later.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've told you before why they use post 1973/74 onwards.justin124 said:No I am not - though I do not think the likes of Laura Kuensberg do - nor indeed most politicians. I am confident that, if given the opportunity of drawing Curtice & Thrasher's attention to these earlier examples , they would accept the point.These are historical electoral facts - I am not making them up! For whatever reason, they have decided on a starting point of 1973/74 Reform of Local Government and for reasons best known to themselves have chosen to ignore earlier data. In no way does that make it invalid to refer to the earlier results.
I may try to send them an email on this - because it is seriously misleading.If political anoraks on here are swallowing that line what hope is there for the public at large?.
Prior to that there were many more council seats up for election, and you can't extrapolate accurate NESV prior to 73/74.
Post 1973/74 Council seat losses/gains combined with NESV gives much more accurate barometer for future general election predictions.
But Rallings, Thrasher, and Curtice have only been studying this for decades, what do they know?0 -
What happens on 23rd June will throw everything up in the air. I'm not sure we can crystal ball any of this.MaxPB said:Welsh Labour could be in for a massive beat down next time out, they have hung on by the skin of their teeth in loads of constituencies. If the referendum hadn't split the Tories and UKIP didn't have their heads up their own arses it would have been very bad for Labour in Wales. Next time out itay be devastating for them like it has been on Scotland.
0
