politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation finds that the Tories would be 3% closer without

SimonStClare said:

isam said:

SimonStClare said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Neil said:

Patrick said:

Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?

He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.

I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.

Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.

Why cant we just acknowledge that the people are doing these awful things are muslims, but that doesn't mean that all muslims, or many at all, support them in the slightest?

People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas

One man’s so called ‘lie’ is another man’s ‘political expediency’ - what you say on a blog site affects very little in the great scheme of things, what a PM says, does effect other people's lives.

“People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt”

Really? - How quickly you forget the attacks on pediatricians..

DanSmith said:

I think we have more than enough polling data now to be honest, any movement now is only going to be ~1-2% and quite frankly that can't really be detected.

AndyJS said:

It's truly pathetic that we have to wait until Wednesday for any IndyPolls.

This is the most important electoral decision for about 300 years.

MaxPB said:

Alanbrooke said:

MaxPB said:

In among all of this gnashing of teeth about the Sweden Democrats, in Germany the march of the populist right has continued, AfD won over 10% of the vote in two key local elections. They did it on a platform of local issues, anti EU, reduction in unskilled immigration, and most controversial, introduction of a referendum to build new mosques. The latter policy is one I think UKIP could use to great effect in the north.

Merkel's increasingly looking in trouble from the AfD. They're holding the rightwing balance of power in several states and she refuses to do a deal with them the numbers meaning her only realistic option is the SPD who not surpiringly demand their pound of flesh. How long her core voters put up with this will be interesting to watch.

The CDU are going to run into the same problem as the Tories over here, they haven't had a serious challenge on their right flank before and they are completely unable to deal with it. Unsurprisingly CDU leadership has gone down the same route as Tory leadership and scorned people who want to vote for AfD or have legitimate concerns about the way the EU is heading, the Euro or immigration from the developing side of Europe/Asia. This is not working and AfD are making key gains across the country. The CDU need to come to terms with this, and open up a dialogue for 2017, AfD could do very, very well and a centre-right/right coalition could be on the cards, CDU supporters may not be able to stomach a grand coalition with the SPD when a right wing coalition is available. They escaped that outcome by 0.3% this time but next time it is on the cards, there is no way that AfD won't win 10-12% in the next federal election.

Worse still, AfD isn't going to be contained like the FDP were, if the CDU keep denying them they will continue to grow just as UKIP has done here. I could see AfD outpolling The Left, the Greens and the FDP in 2017.

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.

Do you think there's any link between anti-Englishness and the repeated chanting of "William Wallace" by a large group of Yessers?

There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think.
Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.

Yesterday outside the BBC Alba building, at least 3 times. Unless the BBC Bias protestors were Unionists in disguise?

Probably dastardly unionist infiltrators,

One of them declared he would be opening a Palestinian embassy in Edinburgh on the 19th. I'm guessing that's not SNP policy?

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.

There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.

At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!

Far from blinkered , merely said I had heard nothing of it. There are nutters everywhere, luckily they are usually a small minority. I don't see shouting "William Wallace " as very menacing , he did not end well did he. You boys down there are big softies.

malcolmg said:

There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think.
Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.

"Merely said I had heard nothing of it" hmmmm...

Do people know when they're blinkered?

Socrates said:

viewcode said:

So when you say "immigration-reducing", you mean[1] "net inward migration of around 80k per year" with an additional rider of "at least 90% degree-educated". That would give a UK population in 2035 of around 67-68 million.

I don't know if it will be achieved (or even attempted!) but it is quantitative and that's what I was asking. So thank you, that's very helpful

[1] Since exact targets are impossible to hit each year, I assume you'd be happy with a target of "net inward migration of between 50 and 100K per year, with an average of around 80K", (with the graduate rider you mentioned).

Right. In terms of quantity, I'd like to get to 1990s levels, which were sensible.

In terms of skill level, I'm happy to have a conversation about how it's defined. If someone is a very high earner (£60k+) then that is enough to make up for not having a degree because they likely have other valuable skills. If they earn below that, then I think people should have a degree from something like the top 400 universities in the world.

I'd also probably put a requirement on that if you come from a country with a history of widespread extremism, you need to have an interview on your political views to make sure you don't have signs of fundamentalism or intolerance. I know this is controversial, but given where we are with hundreds of Britons in Syria, I think tough action is needed.

malcolmg said:

Flightpath said:

DanSmith said:

Funny how it ended up as Catholics vs Protestants.

HurstLlama said:

Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.

It was about religion. And there is religious bigotry still - not least in Scotland. You ncould try to say it is tribalism I suppose but I don't see much difference.

Most of the ones involved would not know the inside of a church if they saw it, far from religious , just bigotry.

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Carnyx said:

About as likely as a mass outbreak of Nessiteras rhombopteryx*. We'll be too busy waiting on the Coalition and their promises. Given the known violence (death threats, assaults, etc., some already convicted in the courts), shouldn't you rationally worry more about an outbreak of No-affiliated violence after a Yes?

But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.

*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.

I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.

There are Yes supporters, who post on Internet forums, who appear to believe that Scotland has been under English rule for over 700 years. They believe themselves to be akin to slaves. I'm pretty sure that this ignorance of history isn't confined to the web. Many of these people do hate the English and will be extremely angry if their dream of FREEDOM!! is dashed this week. If they do revert to tartan-monsterism it'll be happening in our country and the possibility concerns me.

At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!

Far from blinkered , merely said I had heard nothing of it. There are nutters everywhere, luckily they are usually a small minority. I don't see shouting "William Wallace " as very menacing , he did not end well did he. You boys down there are big softies.

Charles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

isam said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Financier said:

Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.

.

But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?

At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.

My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever

Unspoofable...

If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too

Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?

Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.

Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.

Err... Northern Ireland much?

volcanopete said:

Why then does Yes have a problem with women and the new young voters,according to many polls?

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.

Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.

I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe?
Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"?
Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"

SouthamObserver said:

It is surely not that controversial to say that Islam seems to attract a far greater number of people willing to use their religion as a justification for their urge to kill indiscriminately than any other religion. That was not always the case, but it is now.

With regard to Rotherham, though, I don't think it is religion per se that is the problem - it is the culture that has grown up around the religion - both in Pakistan and here. In the 80s I lived in Balsall Heath/Sparkbrook in Birmingham, which was then as it is now, almost entirely populated by people of Pakistani origin and a few students. They kept themselves to themselves, but there was no tension and certainly no attempts to impose views on us, or restrict our activities in any way. There were no burkas on view, no sense of any kind of radical agenda. Something happened at some stage that changed things. I don't know what it was. But it is different now, there is no doubt about it.

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

It was actually about successful divide and rule by the British. In the previous revolt in 1798, both Catholics and non Conformist protestants were subject to the same institutionalised discrimination and rose up against the Church of Ireland establishment. The leader of the United Irishman rebellion, regarded as the father of Republicanism was a nonconformist Protestant Theodore Wolf Tone.

The British deliberately formented sectarianism to put down the rebellion as Wikipedia explains: ...

This only broke down with the rise of nonconformist Prostestant Irish Nationalism under Paisley and the eventual realisation that the prostestant nationalists had more in common with the catholic nationalists and vice versa than either had with the British establishment (represented by the UUP).

If you look back far enough in history, the stunning conversion of Paisley & McGuinness to the "Chuckle brothers" is not so surprising.

Charles said:

isam said:

SimonStClare said:

isam said:

SimonStClare said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Neil said:

Patrick said:

Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?

He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.

I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.

Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.

Why cant we just acknowledge that the people are doing these awful things are muslims, but that doesn't mean that all muslims, or many at all, support them in the slightest?

People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt, people who have it in for muslims aren't going to take any notice of him anyway, so there is no need to lie. Cameron's statement is like a parent telling his kids to keep believing in Father Christmas

One man’s so called ‘lie’ is another man’s ‘political expediency’ - what you say on a blog site affects very little in the great scheme of things, what a PM says, does effect other people's lives.

“People are generally nice and give people the benefit of the doubt”

Really? - How quickly you forget the attacks on pediatricians..

I have forgotten them, so much so that I don't know what you are talking about!

Some of the better educated members of our society (in part whipped up by a Rebekkah Brooks campaign at the NotW) muddled up paediatricans and paedophiles*.

There were attacks on paediatricans in Portsmouth and (@taffys mentioned a while back) either Swansea or Cardiff.

* Of course NotW did not.

HurstLlama said:

Charles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

isam said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Financier said:

Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.

.

But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?

At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.

My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever

Unspoofable...

If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too

Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?

Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.

Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.

Err... Northern Ireland much?

You obviously missed my post in which I answered that point.

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.

Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.

I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe?
Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"?
Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"

So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes

I have English heroes. I just don't try invoke their spirit by chanting their name!

And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.

Have you ever chanted his name?

Neil said:

I was hoping you werent around to read (and be upset by!) that.

Charles said:

HurstLlama said:

Charles said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

Rexel56 said:

isam said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

isam said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Financier said:

Am surprised that this poll shows that at least 25% of London would vote UKIP - this is contrary to most other polls.

.

But there's a problem with this view of the world, isam. While any thoughtful people would agree that it was a characteristically evil act by Labour to import millions of poor immigrants from Pakistan simply to gerrymander elections in perpetuity, with things like Rotherham in consequence, it doesn't take you forward very far. What are you going to do about those who are already here? It's all very well pointing at Rotherham and saying "Nick Griffin was right" but starting from the current position what is your solution?

At this point UKIP/BNP/EDL falls deafeningly silent, either because they have no idea or they realise that what they want to do is not a vote winner.

My prediction is there will be extreme violence in the next 30 odd years that will eventually result in parts of, and eventually the whole of England becoming a sharia state... When the history books are read, it will come as a surprise to kids in 2114 that it was ever

Unspoofable...

If you'd said 50 years ago that Brits would be beheading Brits, bombing tube trains full of Brits in the name of Allah that would have been called unspoofable too

Where do you think it will end? Is it getting better or worse?

Up to quite recently, Brits were murdering fellow Brits in the name of Christianity. It got better.

Errr, no they weren't. Well not unless you count several hundred years ago as quite recently.

Err... Northern Ireland much?

You obviously missed my post in which I answered that point.

I read from the bottom upwards.

How was the ice cream?

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx, I think it is very telling that all the comments re Scottish/English on the referendum have all been emanating from England. Very few people ever mention it up here in respect to the referendum.

Do you think there's any link between anti-Englishness and the repeated chanting of "William Wallace" by a large group of Yessers?

There is not and has not been any anti-english sentiment during the referendum campaign, you are putting too much faith in the Daily Mail I think.
Plus I have no idea what you are talking about re above , certainly did not register in Scotland, perhaps you were watching Braveheart and got confused between fact and fiction.

Yesterday outside the BBC Alba building, at least 3 times. Unless the BBC Bias protestors were Unionists in disguise?

Probably dastardly unionist infiltrators,

isam said:

Important point

TSE said "in the name of Christianity" in response to my "in the name of Allah"

My original point, in answering Bond, James Bond, was that it was the weight of numbers of immigrants, and the segregation from other parts of society, that has created the mess we are in. I never inferred any charcteristic to any race or religion

The point that gets missed is that IT DOESNT MATTER, whether they are genuine, pretend, insincere etc versions of whatever group they say they belong to, the fact that the group is so big is what enables the isolation and feeling of being disenfranchised to grow, which leads to a community that are sympathetic, which leads to a cover up when the bad deeds to take place, inevitably "in the name of... xxx"

I personally couldn't care less whether these people were strict adherents of, or basing their crimes on a bastardisation of, whatever religion they claim to represent. It doesn't matter

SeanT said:

Roger said:

Patrick

"Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?"

Because any generalization suggesting anything else would have made him sound like a bigot which isn't good for anyone let alone a Prime Minister.

Then eventually we, the people, will replace well-meaning bumblers like him with politicians who are prepared to speak the truth. In quite unpleasant tones.

This is the danger the Left is ignoring, indeed - the Left is making it worse. The longer you suppress the truth and evade the obvious, the more likely the voters will go Far Right as against Hard Right.

FFS look at Sweden and France, Holland and Denmark. Almost everywhere in Europe.

Charles said:

isam said:

Important point

TSE said "in the name of Christianity" in response to my "in the name of Allah"

My original point, in answering Bond, James Bond, was that it was the weight of numbers of immigrants, and the segregation from other parts of society, that has created the mess we are in. I never inferred any charcteristic to any race or religion

The point that gets missed is that IT DOESNT MATTER, whether they are genuine, pretend, insincere etc versions of whatever group they say they belong to, the fact that the group is so big is what enables the isolation and feeling of being disenfranchised to grow, which leads to a community that are sympathetic, which leads to a cover up when the bad deeds to take place, inevitably "in the name of... xxx"

I personally couldn't care less whether these people were strict adherents of, or basing their crimes on a bastardisation of, whatever religion they claim to represent. It doesn't matter

I don't think that size matters.

For instance, the Hassidic Jews or the Ashkenazi tend to stick to themselves and marry within their groups. But they don't go around trying to destroy the rest of society.

Cameron's point in that they are "monsters not Muslims" is trying to get to the heart of the problem. It's not their faith that is encouraging them to do this: it is something that has gone very wrong in a specific sub-culture, together with the authorities in the UK turning a blind eye for fear of causing "community issues"/discounting the testimony of the victims.

You get monsters everywhere but, for whatever reason, there appears to have been a disproportionate number in this place and at this time.

re: distinguishing them from "Muslims": simply put there are a lot of people who are not as bright as you and would potentially go and attack innocent Muslims and/or people with brown skins if they thought they had the nod from the PM.

volcanopete said:

malcolmg said:

Flightpath said:

DanSmith said:

Funny how it ended up as Catholics vs Protestants.

HurstLlama said:

Mr. Eagles, You can believe what you choose to but the murders and maimings in Northern Ireland were never about Christianity. Politcs, yes; power, yes; money, yes, but how to, or whether to, worship God, no.

It was about religion. And there is religious bigotry still - not least in Scotland. You ncould try to say it is tribalism I suppose but I don't see much difference.

Most of the ones involved would not know the inside of a church if they saw it, far from religious , just bigotry.

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Carnyx said:

About as likely as a mass outbreak of Nessiteras rhombopteryx*. We'll be too busy waiting on the Coalition and their promises. Given the known violence (death threats, assaults, etc., some already convicted in the courts), shouldn't you rationally worry more about an outbreak of No-affiliated violence after a Yes?

But frankly the levels have been so trivial (see Iain Macwhirter last Sunday) that I would be surprised if there was any violence not accountable by any footie match going on at the time. I was impressed at how quietly the Orange Order march went , to their credit and their opponents as well.

*Scott and Rines's name for the thing in Loch Ness, just in case you don't know.

I think unionists would be more interested in getting out than getting into fights. And the ones that stay will be your problem not ours.



At least you're not as blinkered as Malc, he believes I was delusional even thinking I saw the William Wallace chanting yesterday, but I'm surprised you're so blasé about the potential for civil unrest. Guess we'll just have to hope for YES!!! and FREEDOM!!!

Far from blinkered , merely said I had heard nothing of it. There are nutters everywhere, luckily they are usually a small minority. I don't see shouting "William Wallace " as very menacing , he did not end well did he. You boys down there are big softies.

Why then does Yes have a problem with women and the new young voters,according to many polls?

AndyJS said:

It's truly pathetic that we have to wait until Wednesday for any IndyPolls.

This is the most important electoral decision for about 300 years.

In polling terms, it's like living in the dark ages.

Luckyguy1983 said:

OllyT said:

__Bobajob__ said:

Easterross said:

Morning all and before I go off to the Clan Sutherland Gathering final day of activities, a couple of thoughts.

1) There will be considerable irony if the Scottish Referendum turnout is 80+% making it the highest turnout in Scotland at any election since the Tories won an overall majority of both seats and votes in Scotland in 1955.

2) The Labour Party, especially in Scotland, has spent 35 years demonising the Tory Party and all things Tory. It will therefore be ironic if the Scottish people take Labour at its word, vote YES and in so doing, assign Labour to decades out of government in England.

2) So again we have a PBer saying it is not the Tories' actual policies that are causing the problem but the way Labour presents them.

I am reminded of the words of a long lost poster: "Only from the PB Tories. Only on PB."

Totally agree - Thatcher basically jettisoned those who are not "one of us". I am not so blinkered as to deny that some of the things she did were beneficial but her divisive style of politics is the root cause of where we are to day. PB Tories trying to claim that the fault lies with the way Labour has portrayed her legacy is frankly laughable.

If you can, even with the benefit of hindsight, think of a soft, non devisive way of undoing 30 years of socialist misrule and economic stagnation, along with de facto Government by the NUM, I'm all ears.

Danny565 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OllyT said:

__Bobajob__ said:

Easterross said:

Morning all and before I go off to the Clan Sutherland Gathering final day of activities, a couple of thoughts.

1) There will be considerable irony if the Scottish Referendum turnout is 80+% making it the highest turnout in Scotland at any election since the Tories won an overall majority of both seats and votes in Scotland in 1955.

2) The Labour Party, especially in Scotland, has spent 35 years demonising the Tory Party and all things Tory. It will therefore be ironic if the Scottish people take Labour at its word, vote YES and in so doing, assign Labour to decades out of government in England.

2) So again we have a PBer saying it is not the Tories' actual policies that are causing the problem but the way Labour presents them.

I am reminded of the words of a long lost poster: "Only from the PB Tories. Only on PB."

Totally agree - Thatcher basically jettisoned those who are not "one of us". I am not so blinkered as to deny that some of the things she did were beneficial but her divisive style of politics is the root cause of where we are to day. PB Tories trying to claim that the fault lies with the way Labour has portrayed her legacy is frankly laughable.

If you can, even with the benefit of hindsight, think of a soft, non devisive way of undoing 30 years of socialist misrule and economic stagnation, along with de facto Government by the NUM, I'm all ears.

How about doing what all the other Western countries did by "modernising" their economies without causing sky-high unemployment, causing more poverty than any other country in Western Europe, showering the rich with goodies to rub the poor's noses in it, etc.

Ishmael_X said:

SeanT said:

Ishmael_X said:

Socrates said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

It is doubt about it.

It might be something else again. That the problem is actually a few criminal gangs (sorry, "local businessmen") who, as well as procurement of under-age girls also run protection rackets, smuggling and so on.

For 1400 victims to be raped, it was more than just a few. And this was in a town of a community of just 4000 Pakistani males. While not all Pakistani males are guilty, the criminality must have been endemic. And it has been repeated again and again in other towns without a direct connection, suggesting culture certainly plays a role.

And then there was the culture whereby Pakistani girls that got raped couldn't tell anyone because the culture would dishonour the family more than being a rapist would. One brave victim that publicly came forward was ostracised by the community.

Even if we look at Southam's positive group comparison, they are still people who keep to themselves and don't integrate outside their group. I found this myself at university. A bunch of people from all over the country were thrown in two corridors together. We all got on and socialised together: guys, girls, northerners, southerners, rural people, city people, whites, blacks, Chinese. The one guy that didn't? A Pakistani Muslim. He was a nice, polite bloke, but he still saw us as "not his kind".

Iffy statistics. The 1400 is over 10+ years, the 4000 is - I imagine - at any given time. Let's not make things look worse than they are.

It was 1400 AT LEAST, according to the Jay report. And we all know it is happening right across the country, which means, very probably, tens of thousands of children raped and tortured by racist Muslim gangs - as it has been going on for 20 years, and is still happening today.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738773/Police-plan-mass-raids-sex-gangs-Day-reckoning-hundreds-child-abusers-180-mainly-Asian-men-targeted-Manchester-alone.html

If it was happening in an African country we'd be up in arms. But it is happening in Britain to white working class girls and boys.

This attempt to trivialise the issue is offensive.

I am not attempting to trivialise the issue. On the contrary, I think the situation is such that specific Serious Islamic Crime police units should be set up to investigate Rotherham, Manchester and probably every town in the North of England.

I just hate dodgy statistics, irrespective of how and why they are deployed.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Danny565 said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OllyT said:

__Bobajob__ said:

Easterross said:

Morning all and before I go off to the Clan Sutherland Gathering final day of activities, a couple of thoughts.

1) There will be considerable irony if the Scottish Referendum turnout is 80+% making it the highest turnout in Scotland at any election since the Tories won an overall majority of both seats and votes in Scotland in 1955.

2) The Labour Party, especially in Scotland, has spent 35 years demonising the Tory Party and all things Tory. It will therefore be ironic if the Scottish people take Labour at its word, vote YES and in so doing, assign Labour to decades out of government in England.

2) So again we have a PBer saying it is not the Tories' actual policies that are causing the problem but the way Labour presents them.

I am reminded of the words of a long lost poster: "Only from the PB Tories. Only on PB."

Totally agree - Thatcher basically jettisoned those who are not "one of us". I am not so blinkered as to deny that some of the things she did were beneficial but her divisive style of politics is the root cause of where we are to day. PB Tories trying to claim that the fault lies with the way Labour has portrayed her legacy is frankly laughable.

If you can, even with the benefit of hindsight, think of a soft, non devisive way of undoing 30 years of socialist misrule and economic stagnation, along with de facto Government by the NUM, I'm all ears.

How about doing what all the other Western countries did by "modernising" their economies without causing sky-high unemployment, causing more poverty than any other country in Western Europe, showering the rich with goodies to rub the poor's noses in it, etc.

No other country in Western Europe had socialism like we had it. Look at West Germany for example. Massively built up with US money, no union problem to speak of, no closed shop, no lame ducks like British Leyland.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

How about doing what all the other Western countries did by "modernising" their economies without causing sky-high unemployment, causing more poverty than any other country in Western Europe, showering the rich with goodies to rub the poor's noses in it, etc.

Look up 'sick man of Europe', and weep at the fact that the Wilson, Heath and Callaghan governments missed so many opportunities to correct things when it could have been done with less immediate disruption.

SeanT said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

SimonStClare said:

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

Neil said:

Patrick said:

Does anybody understand why Dave felt compelled yesterday, a day on which a Brit was beheaded by a muslim fundamentalist, to say 'Islam is a religion of peace'?

He probably had an eye on the type of person or organisation who would try to use acts like that to stir up hatred and animosity towards innocent groups of people in the UK.

I agree. However this ostrich liberal attitude is only making things worse as it is a silly thing to say and the facts on the face of it don't seem to bear it out, so it justs alientates even more the EDL types and makes them more sure that the mainsteam politicians dont care about them and lie to them, plus it makes it easier for them to prosleytse.

Bugger all to do with ‘liberal attitudes’ - There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet; ISIS and it’s various off shoots represent a tiny fraction of that number while the vast majority are living quite peacefully. – Some will obviously be disappointed that an entire religious group have not been labelled as they would wish, but that doesn't change the facts.

I wasnt calling for "an entire religious group [to be] labelled". What Cameron said was counterproductive and silly and he should not have said it. He was obviously correct to say nothing alog the lines of labelling an entire religious group and therefore fanning the flames.

Yes, there is peace within majority Islamic countries - for adherents. Being in a Christian minority in most such countries means second class status, instituionalised discrimination or even in some such as our Saudi allies banning of worship. That is not peace as I understand it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756134/Dozens-Christians-including-women-children-arrested-Saudi-Arabia-tip-state-s-Islamist-police-force.html

I'm not even sure the "vast majority" of Muslims are living in blissful peace, as Simon St Clare describes.

At the last count Muslims were engaged in religious war, or religiously-inspired civil strife in:

Libya
Egypt
Syria
Iraq
Indonesia
The Philippines
Thailand
The Caucasus
China
Russia
The Lebanon
Malaysia
Palestine
Yemen
Afghanistan
India
Pakistan
Nigeria
Mali
Sudan
Somalia

I'm sure I've missed some.

Meanwhile Islamist terrorists have committed atrocities in the USA, the UK, France, Spain and elsewhere, and Islamists have travelled to join ISIS from approximately 40 countries, at the last count.

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

JonnyJimmy said:

malcolmg said:

Carnyx , it si mostly bollocks , I see neither JJ or SEAN have noted the beating up of an 80 year old man , bottling of a 13 year old girl or various other physical assualts by NO supporters , yet seem outraged that someone should shout "William Wallace". A pair of thick fannies.

Where's my outrage? I laughed at your denial of any anti-English sentiment, which is so obvious if you'd even try looking for it.

I'd also like, for the record, to laugh at those Scots for whom William Wallace is a national hero whose name is worth chanting. I'm not sure which of mine I'd like to chant.. "BOUDICCA!! BOUDICCA!!" Maybe?
Or how about "ROBIN HOOD!! ROBIN HOOD!!"?
Perhaps the more relevant "LONGSHANKS!! LONGSHANKS!!"

So you are such a sad git that you have no English heroes

I have English heroes. I just don't try invoke their spirit by chanting their name!

And the ones I chose were ones that seem to me the closest to William Wallace for the English.

Have you ever chanted his name?

Certainly not and I think imaginary people like Robin Hood are a bit over the top , at least get a real person, and Boudicca being English is stretching it a lot.


Where does Scotland stand on Robin Hood's FTT?