politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling numbers that should really scare the Tories – the

tyson said:

FF43 said:

NickPalmer said:

I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.

Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.

A key Countryside Alliance message was that town folk don't understand countryside ways, so country people should be allowed to decide things for themselves. In other words turn the discussion from whether hunting foxes is a good idea to who decides? Given that, it wasn't a smart tactical move to go to town to tell bemused bystanders, you're all wrong, especially when marches tend to alienate onlookers anyway.

On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.

Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.

Theuniondivvie said:

Beverley_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Penddu said:

Incidentally, the second language appearing in a UK passport is not French....

Gaelic?

Welsh then Gaelic (I presume on a numbers speaking them basis).

My British passport is English / French.

My Irish passport is Gaelic / English.

I assume they must vary them, though not sure about the logic of who gets what.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SouthamObserver said:

News from the frontline - three teaching assistants laid off at the primary school where a friend sends her kids and the head teacher voluntarily taking a small pay cut on top. There are these kinds of cuts in all the schools around here. Parents notice. It's not just Brexit and it's not just dementia tax.

As regards the schools around here. Lots of the likes of the above, state schools struggling with cuts. However, there is one exception. Specifically, a large former private school has converted to free school status, the net effect of which is that the state will in future pay for the education of those whose parents were wealthy enough to choose to send their children to be educated there. The state has the same control over admissions as when it was a private school i.e. none.

So in our case, there may not have overall been a cut in state expenditure on schooling. Rather, across the board cuts in funding to existing state schools have been made in order to provide a windfall to the parents of those who chose to educate their children privately. To cap it all, the school in question has just had a visit from a member of the royal family in order to celebrate its new status.

tyson said:

FF43 said:

NickPalmer said:

I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.

Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.

A key Countryside Alliance message was that town folk don't understand countryside ways, so country people should be allowed to decide things for themselves. In other words turn the discussion from whether hunting foxes is a good idea to who decides? Given that, it wasn't a smart tactical move to go to town to tell bemused bystanders, you're all wrong, especially when marches tend to alienate onlookers anyway.

On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.

Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.

TOPPING said:

tyson said:

FF43 said:

NickPalmer said:

I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.

Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.

A key Countryside Alliance message was that town folk don't understand countryside ways, so country people should be allowed to decide things for themselves. In other words turn the discussion from whether hunting foxes is a good idea to who decides? Given that, it wasn't a smart tactical move to go to town to tell bemused bystanders, you're all wrong, especially when marches tend to alienate onlookers anyway.

On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.

Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.

Rog you must be having a turn, after your comments about being terrified of Muslim women yesterday.

Paedophilia is illegal. Killing foxes is not. Foxes are killed every day. It is simply a matter of how they are killed. You, and the anti-hunting lot, don't like people dressing up and enjoying their sport. Fine. You are at liberty not to like such people. But whether someone kills a fox with a smile on their face, or weeping tears of sorrow is irrelevant.

tyson said:

@Mortimer and Richard Tyndall

...She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.

tyson said:

TOPPING said:

tyson said:

FF43 said:

NickPalmer said:

I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.

Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.

A key Countryside Alliance message was that town folk don't understand countryside ways, so country people should be allowed to decide things for themselves. In other words turn the discussion from whether hunting foxes is a good idea to who decides? Given that, it wasn't a smart tactical move to go to town to tell bemused bystanders, you're all wrong, especially when marches tend to alienate onlookers anyway.

On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.

Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.

Rog you must be having a turn, after your comments about being terrified of Muslim women yesterday.

Paedophilia is illegal. Killing foxes is not. Foxes are killed every day. It is simply a matter of how they are killed. You, and the anti-hunting lot, don't like people dressing up and enjoying their sport. Fine. You are at liberty not to like such people. But whether someone kills a fox with a smile on their face, or weeping tears of sorrow is irrelevant.

No....I accept culling is necessary in specific circumstances, though the rural fox population is reducing.....but killing them with large packs of hounds is disgusting and illegal and as Olly said....will remain so. No Tory will put it in their manifesto

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

Trigger warning....

It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.

Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?

The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.

That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.

It is an argument for a much greater emphasis on mental health issues, though; especially among young men. A lot of Europe's home-grown Moslem terrorists seem to have damaged backgrounds and spent time in prison where they become radicalised. It might be worth investing more money in mental health monitoring and treatments in prison. The amounts spent would be tiny in comparison to the costs of potential catastrophes averted.

Penddu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Beverley_C said:

Theuniondivvie said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Penddu said:

Incidentally, the second language appearing in a UK passport is not French....

Gaelic?

Welsh then Gaelic (I presume on a numbers speaking them basis).

My British passport is English / French.

My Irish passport is Gaelic / English.

I assume they must vary them, though not sure about the logic of who gets what.

I am pretty certain that all UK passports are the same - and my last one was issued in Germany so dont think it depends where you live....

But check out the first page inside the cover - First words say European Union - followed immediately below by Undeb Ewropaidd

They brought this in a few (8 ? ) years ago - so possibly if your passport is older than this it might be English & French but curreny is definietle Welsh

TOPPING said:

tyson said:

TOPPING said:

tyson said:

FF43 said:

NickPalmer said:

I'm sure it was fun, and I've been in demos which I enjoyed too. My point is that mass demos are usually counter-productive if the intention is to change minds (as opposed to other things like mobilising people, making them feel part of a movement etc.). From the inside they feel enjoyable and warm and mutually supportive, from the outside they look like a mob who need to be resisted. I'm not sure what the answer is in terms of effective demos, since quiet demos tend to pass without much reaction at all. Constituents lobbying their MPs is what works.

Incidentally, the other effect was to damage the CA's ability to influence MPs on any other subject. They tried hard to shake off the "all about hunting" image but never succeeded, whereas an organisation like BASC - which is all about shooting and might be expected to get a similar reaction - has always successfully engaged with MPs.

On that logic, why can't we let the poor misunderstood paedophiles have their say. Let them decide whether it's OK to bugger kids.

Mate...I don't want to live in a country where it's acceptable for packs of hounds to tear apart terrified foxes. Like paedophilia, I know it happens, but I don't want it to be accepted by the government. No fucking way comrade.

Rog you must be having a turn, after your comments about being terrified of Muslim women yesterday.

Paedophilia is illegal. Killing foxes is not. Foxes are killed every day. It is simply a matter of how they are killed. You, and the anti-hunting lot, don't like people dressing up and enjoying their sport. Fine. You are at liberty not to like such people. But whether someone kills a fox with a smile on their face, or weeping tears of sorrow is irrelevant.

No....I accept culling is necessary in specific circumstances, though the rural fox population is reducing.....but killing them with large packs of hounds is disgusting and illegal and as Olly said....will remain so. No Tory will put it in their manifesto

So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?

Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.

So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.

Blue_rog said:

tyson said:

@Mortimer and Richard Tyndall

I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.

If your wife was so traumatised and worried about her parents, why didn't you stay in Italy?

OllyT said:

I doubt any of us on PB will ever live to see the "full gains" from Brexit.

Charles said:

Yes. It was one of things that I thought was best about May's performance on QT.

Mental health is important, and often neglected. For instance, veterans are one of the biggest component of the homeless population, often driven by mental health issues

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SouthamObserver said:

News from the frontline - three teaching assistants laid off at the primary school where a friend sends her kids and the head teacher voluntarily taking a small pay cut on top. There are these kinds of cuts in all the schools around here. Parents notice. It's not just Brexit and it's not just dementia tax.

As regards the schools around here. Lots of the likes of the above, state schools struggling with cuts. However, there is one exception. Specifically, a large former private school has converted to free school status, the net effect of which is that the state will in future pay for the education of those whose parents were wealthy enough to choose to send their children to be educated there. The state has the same control over admissions as when it was a private school i.e. none.

So in our case, there may not have overall been a cut in state expenditure on schooling. Rather, across the board cuts in funding to existing state schools have been made in order to provide a windfall to the parents of those who chose to educate their children privately. To cap it all, the school in question has just had a visit from a member of the royal family in order to celebrate its new status.

And in future, bright children of all backgrounds (assuming the admissions policy is on some objective basis) will be able to benefit. There may be a deadweight cost for about 5 years

I thought you (I believe you're relatively left wing) would be pleased with that

It's a totally unnecessary deadweight cost that is being paid by the parents of children who will lose out as a result of it being incurred. Why on earth would anyone be pleased with that?

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

tyson said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

Trigger warning....

It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.

Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?

The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.

That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.

Obsessional disorders are mental health conditions.....

All these mass killers suffer from extreme narcissistic personality disorder which by it's nature makes it impossible for them to show empathy. And, worryingly, extreme Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat....they do not respond to Pharma or Cognitive therapies. The best way I suppose is to try and identify them and point their obsessions on something that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing

I know. I was trying to find a way to differentiate between behaviour built around belief systems (whether religious or otherwise) vs "proper" mental health issues. For instance, assuming the man in the van is guilty, then he should be treated as someone who is guilty of attempted murder rather than someone who is sick. (Unless, of course, a psychiatrist's report proves beyond reasonable doubt that his presumed actions were a manifestation of his sickness not his beliefs)

I suspect there's often an overlap between the two: people with mental health issues are often drawn to religion, which offers a structure missing from their everyday lives. Look at SeanT for example.

tyson said:

@Mortimer and Richard Tyndall

I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

Charles said:

Some examples of abusive placards? I was on the March and don't recall them

It's a long time ago, but I recall some very nasty ones about Blair. With his current unpopularity, many people will see nothing wrong with that, but as a way of influencing Government MPs it was a bad idea.

A problem for all march organisers is that they're not really motivated to discourage participants who've brought their own placards (likewise the SWP and other fringe groups at left-wing demos) - it takes a very firm policy to say "You can't carry that in our demo".

1998:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=990&q=countryside+march+1998+placards&oq=countryside+march+1998+placards&gs_l=img.3...989.17368.0.17511.39.32.1.0.0.0.916.4786.3-7j2j0j2.11.0....0...1.1.64.img..27.10.4020...0j0i10k1j0i10i24k1j0i24k1.IdOxIXfgG6s

"I love my country, but fear my government"
"The peasants are revolting"
"Fight prejudice, fight the ban"
"Bang out of order"

Yep, those seem pretty nasty.

2002:

"Newsflash: Tony Blair is still a w*nker".
"We don't take prisoners, townie" [with a mask of Blair]

Hmmh...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=990&q=countryside+march+1998+placards&oq=countryside+march+1998+placards&gs_l=img.3...989.17368.0.17511.39.32.1.0.0.0.916.4786.3-7j2j0j2.11.0....0...1.1.64.img..27.10.4020...0j0i10k1j0i10i24k1j0i24k1.IdOxIXfgG6s#safe=strict&tbm=isch&q=liberty+and+livelihood+march+placards

How about these ones?

"Bliar, Bliar"
"Deaf to reason, guilty of treason"
"Destroy power, not people"
"Blair will be tried as a war criminal"

Sorry. My mistake. Those were from the anti Iraq war march

https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=990&q=countryside+march+1998+placards&oq=countryside+march+1998+placards&gs_l=img.3...989.17368.0.17511.39.32.1.0.0.0.916.4786.3-7j2j0j2.11.0....0...1.1.64.img..27.10.4020...0j0i10k1j0i10i24k1j0i24k1.IdOxIXfgG6s#safe=strict&tbm=isch&q=anti+iraq+war+march+2001+placards

With all due respect, Nick, I think you have created a false memory to justify your own worldview.

Hunting is a minority activity, which is important to a small group of people. (Personally I don't really care). The most significant issue is one of liberty.

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

tyson said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

Trigger warning....

It sounds like the Finsbury Park attacker had mental health issues.

Isn't a desire to drive a van into a group of people on the street a pretty good leading indication of that?

The desire -and then the ability - to commit murder randomly in any situation surely indicates someone not being the full shilling.

That was kind of my point. You can then determine whether it is a neurological (i.e. "physical") issue that can be treated with therapy or pharmacological intervention, or whether it is an "obsession" (which could be religious or of some other nature). The second is much harder to treat.

Obsessional disorders are mental health conditions.....

All these mass killers suffer from extreme narcissistic personality disorder which by it's nature makes it impossible for them to show empathy. And, worryingly, extreme Personality disorders are notoriously difficult to treat....they do not respond to Pharma or Cognitive therapies. The best way I suppose is to try and identify them and point their obsessions on something that doesn't involve indiscriminate killing

I know. I was trying to find a way to differentiate between behaviour built around belief systems (whether religious or otherwise) vs "proper" mental health issues. For instance, assuming the man in the van is guilty, then he should be treated as someone who is guilty of attempted murder rather than someone who is sick. (Unless, of course, a psychiatrist's report proves beyond reasonable doubt that his presumed actions were a manifestation of his sickness not his beliefs)

I suspect there's often an overlap between the two: people with mental health issues are often drawn to religion, which offers a structure missing from their everyday lives. Look at SeanT for example.

Probably, also they are often susceptible to persuasive and charismatic individuals who can act as leaders

CarlottaVance said:

Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:

Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.

• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.

• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.

• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.

• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2017-06-20-future-europe-attitudes-raines-goodwin-cutts-final.pdf

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

tyson said:

@Mortimer and Richard Tyndall

I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.

It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.

I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.

What is it, though?

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

tyson said:

@Mortimer and Richard Tyndall

I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.

It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.

I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.

What is it, though?

My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.

Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.

Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.

kurtjester said:

SouthamObserver said:

Blue_rog said:

tyson said:

@Mortimer and Richard Tyndall

I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.

If your wife was so traumatised and worried about her parents, why didn't you stay in Italy?

Yes - Tyson and his wife have been presented with a really shit choice with major downsides on both sides, haven't they? I may be a woolly-headed, Britain-hating traitor, but my instinct is to feel that it could all have been averted by a government with more nous and compassion.

Why should HMG care about Tyson's lifestyle choice?

Charles said:

TOPPING said:

FF43 said:

tyson said:

@Mortimer and Richard Tyndall

I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.

It's your freedom of movement versus their freedom to say you can't move.

I am struggling to understand the nub of the issue for the Tyson family. There obviously is one because otherwise they wouldn't have completed such an upheaval.

What is it, though?

My understanding (from past posts) is that Tyson owns his various BTL properties directly. Post Brexit, if his wife is not a UK citizen, he faces a fairly large inheritance tax issue because he won't have the various exemptions open to UK citizens and the read across to EU citizens no longer applies.

Because they moved to Italy his wife no longer has continuous residence in the UK, so they have to requalify in order for her to become a UK citizen.

Hence they are moving back to the UK in order to reduce the amount of tax that they pay.

SouthamObserver said:

kurtjester said:

SouthamObserver said:

Blue_rog said:

tyson said:

@Mortimer and Richard Tyndall

I live in England thanks to Brexit...we had to move back this March because my Italian wife hadn't taken out UK citizenship. If you could begin to imagine the anxieties Brexit is causing people like my wife who has worked for UK companies for 20 years and paid taxes and multiply it by ten you couldn't reach it. She has been forced to leave octagenerian parents too whom we may need to bring across at huge expense for the NHS.

If your wife was so traumatised and worried about her parents, why didn't you stay in Italy?

Yes - Tyson and his wife have been presented with a really shit choice with major downsides on both sides, haven't they? I may be a woolly-headed, Britain-hating traitor, but my instinct is to feel that it could all have been averted by a government with more nous and compassion.

Why should HMG care about Tyson's lifestyle choice?

HMG should care about what is best for the UK. Leaving millions of individuals in the lurch is not good for them and is not good for the country.

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:

Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.

• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.

• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.

• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.

• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2017-06-20-future-europe-attitudes-raines-goodwin-cutts-final.pdf

Not thinking you have benefited from EU membership does not mean that you have not benefited from EU membership.

The Elite know best......

Perceived effects of immigration...
Elite/Public
Has been good for country: 57 / 25
Neutral : 16 / 31
Has been bad for country 24 / 44

Net Good: +33 / -19

NB - this is a European study across 10 countries - not just the UK

Key word - "perceived".

Beverley_C said:

Blue_rog said:

TOPPING said:

So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?

Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.

So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.

I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.

Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?

If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.

(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:

Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.

• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.

• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.

• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.

• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2017-06-20-future-europe-attitudes-raines-goodwin-cutts-final.pdf

Not thinking you have benefited from EU membership does not mean that you have not benefited from EU membership.

The Elite know best......

Perceived effects of immigration...
Elite/Public
Has been good for country: 57 / 25
Neutral : 16 / 31
Has been bad for country 24 / 44

Net Good: +33 / -19

NB - this is a European study across 10 countries - not just the UK

Key word - "perceived".

The elite types have never been to the places where it negatively affects the public, so they 'perceived' it to be a net good? Agreed, I like your thinking

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

Blue_rog said:

TOPPING said:

So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?

Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.

So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.

I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.

Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?

If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.

(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)

What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

Chatam House - the 'elite's' view of the EU, contrasted with regular folks:

Members of the elite overwhelmingly (71%) said they have bene ted from European integration. In contrast, the public was divided almost perfectly into thirds: 34% said they have benefited, 32% that they have not, and 34% did not express a strong view either way.

• A much higher proportion of the elite (37%) than the public (9%) felt ‘strongly’ that they had benefited from the EU.

• Thus members of the elite were more than twice as likely as the public to say they had benefited, and four times as likely to feel this strongly.

• Those most likely to say that people like them benefit from the EU tend to be men, aged 18–29 or over 60, with university degrees, who live in a city and have higher incomes.

• Conversely, those least likely to say they benfit from the EU are middle-aged (45–59), have low levels of education, live in rural areas or small towns, and are on moderate rather than high or low incomes. (Chapter 4 examines the signi cance of these factors in depth.)

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2017-06-20-future-europe-attitudes-raines-goodwin-cutts-final.pdf

Not thinking you have benefited from EU membership does not mean that you have not benefited from EU membership.

The Elite know best......

Perceived effects of immigration...
Elite/Public
Has been good for country: 57 / 25
Neutral : 16 / 31
Has been bad for country 24 / 44

Net Good: +33 / -19

NB - this is a European study across 10 countries - not just the UK

Key word - "perceived".

The elite types have never been to the places where it negatively affects the public, so they 'perceived' it to be a net good? Agreed, I like your thinking

Yep - and those who perceived it to be a bad thing have never connected it to cheaper goods and services, greater demand and more jobs. Swings and roundabouts.

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

Where did this 'elite' meme come from orginally?

We had Trump obviously (an ironically) and Gove, with his 'no experts' stuff, but who started it?

It was concocted by a very wealthy right wing elite to convey the impression that those who do not agree with the right wing elite are out of touch. It seemed very clever at the time. It may turn out to be less so if it leads to a Corbyn government.

Beverley_C said:

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

Blue_rog said:

TOPPING said:

So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?

Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.

So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.

I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.

Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?

If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.

(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)

What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?

OK, I will be more blunt about it.

I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.

I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:

1) Kill as few as possible
2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc.
3) Kill it as quickly as possible

dyedwoolie said:

Mortimer said:

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

Blue_rog said:

TOPPING said:

So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?

Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.

So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.

I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.

Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?

If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.

(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)

What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?

Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.

We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.

A nation that does its shopping in supermarkets does not deserve a say on rural affairs.

Jonathan said:

Where did this 'elite' meme come from orginally?

We had Trump obviously (an ironically) and Gove, with his 'no experts' stuff, but who started it?

AlastairMeeks said:

dyedwoolie said:

Mortimer said:

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

Blue_rog said:

TOPPING said:

So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?

Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.

So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.

I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.

Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?

If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.

(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)

What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?

Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.

We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.

A nation that does its shopping in supermarkets does not deserve a say on rural affairs.

Rural people who live high on the hog on urban money do not deserve a say, full stop.

Beverley_C said:

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

Blue_rog said:

TOPPING said:

So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?

Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.

So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.

I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.

Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?

If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.

(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)

What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?

OK, I will be more blunt about it.

I do not give a d*mn about the emotions of the killers / hunters / fishermen.

I prefer animals not to be killed, but if they are going to be killed then we should:

1) Kill as few as possible
2) Use ALL of the killed animal for food, clothing, etc.
3) Kill it as quickly as possible

Does that include rats and mice? How about flies? How about male chicks?

I am happy to discuss the whys and wherefores of hunting all day long (have to go in about 15 mins!), and I respect your evident raw emotions about humanity and the animal kingdom. But it really is just not that simple.

I appreciate it is a complex issue, but points 1 and 3 can be applied whether the animals are used for food or not. Vermin can be controlled better through proper waste management. They tend to thrive were we are sloppy.

Blue_rog said:

Mortimer said:

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

Blue_rog said:

TOPPING said:

So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?

Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.

So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.

I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.

Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?

If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.

(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)

What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?

Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.

We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.

An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Woolie, there's a reason why almost every F1 team is based in the UK. We're excellent at high end engineering.

Blue_rog said:

dyedwoolie said:

Blue_rog said:

Mortimer said:

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

Blue_rog said:

TOPPING said:

So what is the practical difference between someone killing a fox who enjoys it and someone killing a fox who doesn't enjoy it?

Hunting with hounds was deemed by the Burns enquiry not to be cruel.

So no difference. Apart from your prejudice.

I think we should have a serious debate about the cruelty of fishing.

Surely the difference is that the fox does not get cooked and eaten?

If fisherman caught fish, smeared the blood on each others' cheeks, cut the tail off and threw the rest away then there might be an equivalence. In fact, many object to the chinese paying for shark fin soup because some fishermen just cut the fins off and throw the still live fish back into the sea.

(For the avoidance of doubt: I do not fish either as a hobby or commercially, but I do use Sainsbury's fish counter occasionally)

What does it matter what they do with the fox once it's dead? Foxes are pests. You could go out and shoot one this afternoon if you so desired. Why the worry about the emotions of the people who do kill foxes?

Townie hypocrisy is the only way I can understand it.

We want you to provide our food, with as little knowledge or exposure of the methods, but we want every possible light to be shone on those social practices that are commonly associated with rural food production.

An example - This weekend I had an extended discussion with my local butcher about ordering a sizeable quatity of belly and loin of pork for porchetta and a quantity of veal for vitello tonnato. Can't do that in your local supermarket.

How do you like your Steak? Not pink and in hermetically sealed packaging please.
We buy crap cos it's cheap.

Eat less meat and when you do, eat the best quality! We eat meat 2 - 3 times a week with veg and pulses the rest of the time. All meals delicious and the variety makes eating a pleasure.