politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on Saturday: We might have passed peak UKIP?
Comments
-
You tell me Labour's or the Tory's given their current announcements and then I'll make up a UKIP one for you.Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday? Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter0 -
I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.0
-
Well, indeed. It's a prime example of a middle class politician being completely out of touch with a large number of her constituents.JohnLilburne said:
She ought to, she will represent a number. They probably come to her surgeries.SouthamObserver said:
As I said, she was commenting as a middle class politician, who like most middle class politicians of all parties, does not spend much time with people that hang multiple flags from their windows, drive white vans and are covered in tattoos.Socrates said:
She said she'd "never seen anything like it". Now I would have thought people flying two flags, or one big flag out their house would have been something "like it". The woman was utterly astonished at a fairly common site among working class and lower middle class people. Was it a sackable offence? No. But it showed that she was deeply out of touch.SouthamObserver said:
And she will see the same in the many council estates that there are in Islington. What was out of the ordinary was the number and the fact that they covered so much of the house. Astonishing? No, of course not. Unusual, yes.Socrates said:
It sounds like you don't go out much either. I know plenty of council estates from places like Hatfield and Basildon where people hang flags out their window on a permanent basis.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
0 -
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.0 -
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.0 -
Probably. People that you approve of would surely never vote for her; only those that you despise.Itajai said:
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
0 -
One would assume that those who didn’t vote for her also contact her if necessary.Itajai said:
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.0 -
The problems in Ireland long preceded the introduction of mass education, as you well know.OldKingCole said:
I didn’t realise that recognising one the roots of N Ireland’s problems demonstrated that one was a Communist. Of course there are things which an even handed State can do better.Ninoinoz said:
Well, there you have it, folks.OldKingCole said:There is no reason why, today, such orgnisations should provide a service which, if properly organised, the state could provide.
Faith schools are divisive, and provide opportunity for distrust (at best) between religions. Can I refer you to N. Ireland.
I've found the last supporter of Soviet Communism in the World.
The State should do everything, except the things it can't.
Surely it should be the other way round? Private individuals and organisations should do everything, except the things they can't?
BTW, you do know Communism lost the Cold War?
I also don't remember Stormont being exactly even handed.0 -
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).0 -
I doubt it was deliberate, any more than Gordon deliberately had his "bigoted woman" quote recorded. Rather lacking in self-awareness I'd have thought: in a briefly unguarded moment she showed us her true feelings and prejudices.SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
I do wonder if that incident from the last election campaign has coloured Milliband's reaction to this one: Labour are probably paranoid about showing how out of touch they are.
0 -
Washington Post did quite a good job of explaining it for people not familiar with our culture http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/20/how-this-seemingly-innocuous-tweet-forced-a-british-mp-to-resign/AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
0 -
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.0 -
Of course if she had given any number of reasons except for what she actually said when questioned (before she knew she was deep in it):AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Thornberry, who lives in a £3million home in London, later told The Telegraph she posted the photo because she thought it was "remarkable" as she had never seen a house "completely covered in flags before".
As you can see from the tweet someone posted (below) she made two years ago, she lied, then it all fell apart for her.0 -
I think, Mr L, that we’ve found a point of agreement.JohnLilburne said:
I doubt it was deliberate, any more than Gordon deliberately had his "bigoted woman" quote recorded. Rather lacking in self-awareness I'd have thought: in a briefly unguarded moment she showed us her true feelings and prejudices.SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
I do wonder if that incident from the last election campaign has coloured Milliband's reaction to this one: Labour are probably paranoid about showing how out of touch they are.0 -
SouthamObserver said:
Probably. People that you approve of would surely never vote for her; only those that you despise.Itajai said:
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
How true0 -
UKIP dropped in the local elections because of the fact that London (not native UKIP territory) voted.
What happened in Rochester is that the WWC defected to UKIP en masse (both from the Tories AND from Labour), whilst the UMC stayed loyal to the Tories and the public sector to Labour.
So - start looking at areas where the WWC predominate - and this leads you to the Midlands upwards.0 -
A problem arises when marriages break up. All of a sudden a women with little education and often no English then has to support herself.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
0 -
Yes, indeed. Vile, repulsive ethnics, eh?Itajai said:SouthamObserver said:
Probably. People that you approve of would surely never vote for her; only those that you despise.Itajai said:
Most of her voters are probably ethnics and middle class trendies.SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
How true
0 -
That's because you are sane, and there is some kind of collective insanity at work here. cf. The reactions to the death of Diana in 1997.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
0 -
I'm not sure it actually changed, or UKIP just worded their replies differnetly (to get around their critics wording things in such a way to make it sound bad).Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).0 -
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
0 -
Below from the Spectator (after her lying):
But before she sent the apology, though, Thornberry was telling the Guardian’s Rowena Mason that she was the victim of prejudice – and that her critics were trying to ‘promote a somewhat prejudiced attitude towards Islington’. Result: even now, the row is escalating into a wider, more lethal row about Posh Londoner Miliband’s attitude to the working class.
So she started digging a hole and then proceeded to fill it while still in it.0 -
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.0 -
I am in two minds about that, most parties hang on to an untenably policy position for months agonising about it while they get destroyed by journos and the social media. Nige saw trouble brewing and just said Reckless was wrong, and effectively killed the story stone dead. Reckless might be a bit pissed off, but thats what he is paid for, the journos lost interest immediately, we talk about it still, but for the public its a non-story now.Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
0 -
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
Exactly. Although the pic she tweeted from yonks ago was significantly diffewrent.Swiss_Bob said:Below from the Spectator (after her lying):
But before she sent the apology, though, Thornberry was telling the Guardian’s Rowena Mason that she was the victim of prejudice – and that her critics were trying to ‘promote a somewhat prejudiced attitude towards Islington’. Result: even now, the row is escalating into a wider, more lethal row about Posh Londoner Miliband’s attitude to the working class.
So she started digging a hole and then proceeded to fill it while still in it.0 -
The debate was about the status of EU nationals that are in this country at the time we leave the EU, having come to this country with the expectation of being able to settle permanently.JohnLilburne said:
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
0 -
I would imagine that Reckless followed a train of thought re what would happen if the UK left the EU.
Instead of just saying there would be transitional arrangements that would have to be worked out he came to a 'logical' conclusion that they should be deported.
However, the logical conclusion was not a sensible one and most people would accept that people already settled in the UK would be allowed to stay. Which is a sensible policy.0 -
Mr Reckless seems to think it did. Isn't he quite big in UKIP circles?Socrates said:
I'm not sure it actually changed, or UKIP just worded their replies differnetly (to get around their critics wording things in such a way to make it sound bad).Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
0 -
The fact you think this shows how much the media distorts things. He never said the word "deported". What he said was that they should get "at least a time limited work permit". So he was talking about the transitional arrangements.Swiss_Bob said:Instead of just saying there would be transitional arrangements that would have to be worked out he came to a 'logical' conclusion that they should be deported.
0 -
TxIndigo said:
The debate was about the status of EU nationals that are in this country at the time we leave the EU, having come to this country with the expectation of being able to settle permanently.JohnLilburne said:
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
0 -
thanks. I will read itIndigo said:
Washington Post did quite a good job of explaining it for people not familiar with our culture http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/20/how-this-seemingly-innocuous-tweet-forced-a-british-mp-to-resign/AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
0 -
A special policy is needed because there will be a large number of EU migrants here, many of which have been here for a long time and would have had ILR if they had been non-EU migrants. There would need to be transitional arrangements that are fair to everyone.JohnLilburne said:
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).0 -
Weren't people in England being prosecuted for hanging flags outside their houses until Labour changed the law?MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
Not forgetting people being stopped by plod for having England flags on their cars.0 -
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans. That's why what would have made Thornberry's photo extraordinary is if every house in it did have England flags hanging from them and white vans outside.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.0 -
On topic. Have we passed Peak Tory (1983) and Peak Labour (1997)?
And did the LibDems ever peak?
0 -
@SouthamObserver
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?0 -
And when a UKIP MEP shows her true feelings about 'ting tongs'? I find myself looking from pig to man and man to pig and not seeing any difference.OldKingCole said:
I think, Mr L, that we’ve found a point of agreement.JohnLilburne said:
I doubt it was deliberate, any more than Gordon deliberately had his "bigoted woman" quote recorded. Rather lacking in self-awareness I'd have thought: in a briefly unguarded moment she showed us her true feelings and prejudices.SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
I do wonder if that incident from the last election campaign has coloured Milliband's reaction to this one: Labour are probably paranoid about showing how out of touch they are.0 -
Have immigrants from the EU been here especially longer than immigrants from anywhere else? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Am I detecting something a little unsavoury here?Socrates said:
A special policy is needed because there will be a large number of EU migrants here, many of which have been here for a long time and would have had ILR if they had been non-EU migrants. There would need to be transitional arrangements that are fair to everyone.JohnLilburne said:
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).0 -
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
On topic
I think David Herdson as always with is official Conservative Party member status mindset offers no cigar to UKIP.
I believe he is wrong they deserve a real pint of Black Sheep cask ale from Yorkshire.
As they are not as bitter as he is, at the prospect
of shaking up his and the established parties right to rule over us , in the same its our turn way.0 -
Perhaps this colours people's views:
Google "prosecuted for flying an England flag" - 5.38 million results.0 -
Morning all.0
-
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).0 -
Yes, poor of me not to check what he actually said.Socrates said:
The fact you think this shows how much the media distorts things. He never said the word "deported". What he said was that they should get "at least a time limited work permit". So he was talking about the transitional arrangements.Swiss_Bob said:Instead of just saying there would be transitional arrangements that would have to be worked out he came to a 'logical' conclusion that they should be deported.
0 -
I have no idea. But I do know that there are not 14 million middle class, metropolitan lefties in England.Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
0 -
I'm not planning to vote for UKIP next May so I don't see the relevance of your comment. I'm fairly sure OKC isn't going to either. For the avoidance of doubt, I think calling someone "ting tong" is crass and racist and someone in public life should learn not to say that sort of thing.Flightpath said:
And when a UKIP MEP shows her true feelings about 'ting tongs'? I find myself looking from pig to man and man to pig and not seeing any difference.OldKingCole said:
I think, Mr L, that we’ve found a point of agreement.JohnLilburne said:I doubt it was deliberate, any more than Gordon deliberately had his "bigoted woman" quote recorded. Rather lacking in self-awareness I'd have thought: in a briefly unguarded moment she showed us her true feelings and prejudices.
I do wonder if that incident from the last election campaign has coloured Milliband's reaction to this one: Labour are probably paranoid about showing how out of touch they are.
0 -
No, but isn't the problem that Ed did?SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
Which is why we're still discussing it instead of it being buried with a contrite apology the day it happened.
Such is the man who would be Prime Minister in a little over 5 months.....
0 -
Yes, that is exactly the problem. And Cameron thought the same. As did Farage.CarlottaVance said:
No, but isn't the problem that Ed did?SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
Which is why we're still discussing it instead of it being buried with a contrite apology the day it happened.
Such is the man who would be Prime Minister in a little over 5 months.....
0 -
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
It was just a neutral observation of a house in the Constituency.. the flags/van were irrelevant?0 -
No, but you are trying hard ;-)Stark_Dawning said:
Have immigrants from the EU been here especially longer than immigrants from anywhere else? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Am I detecting something a little unsavoury here?
0 -
No, but it means that it's something you will see fairly often. Especially (as has been pointed out) if you are a Labour MP who has no doubt spent much of your political career doorknocking on housing estates. Not a remarkable sight that appears to demand a tweet.SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
This is exactly the sort of post that InnocentAbroad described when he left. Why do you need to be so nasty? You don't like UKIP, we get it. But you seem intent on calling their supporters names. It's very unpleasant.Flightpath said:
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).0 -
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mark Reckless. The poor man clearly thought he was joining a proper political outfit. Instead he was utterly humiliated by Farage for stating agreed UKIP policy, unaware that such things exist only upon Farage's whim on a given day. What's more UKIP supporters are completely relaxed about this state of affairs. This thing's a cult.Flightpath said:
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
0 -
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
0 -
I think the point is she laughs at her own supporters and gets sacked and a kipper MEP insults her supporters and gets away with it. Indeed kippers cannot see the problem and blame the BBC Light Entertainment Dept.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.0 -
No, they haven't. But because they can stay here without going through the visa process, they don't have ILR. Immigrants from elsewhere would have had this by now.Stark_Dawning said:
Have immigrants from the EU been here especially longer than immigrants from anywhere else? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Am I detecting something a little unsavoury here?Socrates said:
A special policy is needed because there will be a large number of EU migrants here, many of which have been here for a long time and would have had ILR if they had been non-EU migrants. There would need to be transitional arrangements that are fair to everyone.JohnLilburne said:
Why does UKIP have a policy about EU migrants? Surely it wants to leave the EU. Before we leave there is no point having a policy as we are bound by freedom of movement (although we could still amend benefit rules). After we leave they just become "migrants" like Americans and Somalis. Or is UKIP proposing to still have a particular relationship with EU countries after leaving?Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).0 -
I'm afraid the reality here is that this episode has shone a bright light into the dark recesses inhabited by the snobby Hyacinth Buckets of the left. There are many metropolitan Labour voters for whom putting their cross in the same box is the only connection whatsoever they have with those who they look down their nose at.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans. That's why what would have made Thornberry's photo extraordinary is if every house in it did have England flags hanging from them and white vans outside.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
No - Cameron and Farage thought it was a great stick to beat Ed with - as indeed it has.....SouthamObserver said:
Yes, that is exactly the problem. And Cameron thought the same. As did Farage.CarlottaVance said:
No, but isn't the problem that Ed did?SouthamObserver said:
So your explanation is that she deliberately Tweeted a sneering message designed to disparage a large number of voters who should be naturally predisposed to Labour. I am not sure I buy that.MarqueeMark said:
Because any other interpretation requires a suspension of disbelief that would be thrown out in script-writing 1.01. This is not some folksy grandma over from deepest Idaho seeing Britain's quaint home-decorating customs for the first time. This is a front-line politician who we can assume has been door-knocking for many a year in urban areas.SouthamObserver said:
And you know she was sneering how?Charles said:
We'll I think you are wrong.SouthamObserver said:
It's not something you "expect" to see anywhere on a normal working day. On Armistice day, perhaps. And, presumably, your flags have now been taken down.Charles said:
I said, in the very post to which you replied, that we hung 2 flags outside our shop - so clearly it's not something that I feel is sneer-worthy.SouthamObserver said:
How do you know she was sneering? What would you think there is to sneer at in hanging flags out of your window?Charles said:
We had 2 flags hanging from the front of our shop for Armistice Day. It's not a class thing - it was pure, nasty sneering at someone she regarded as being "beneath" her. Not really a sacking offence, but the mask definitely slipped
But the way she phrased it as "image from Rochester" implied that it was curious, and something remarkable - and by implication something that she would not expect to see in Islington. May be a sneer, may be not. But fairly close to the boundary either way
It seems to me that the only way anyone can draw a conclusion that she was sneering is that somewhere inside them they feel there was something to sneer at. This is exactly what Miliband did - and what Cameron did in his reaction.
It's possible for people to understand others motivations without sharing them
Her explanation was intelligence-insulting guff from someone who had been caught out sneering.
Which is why we're still discussing it instead of it being buried with a contrite apology the day it happened.
Such is the man who would be Prime Minister in a little over 5 months.....
0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
Mr. Pulpstar, you are a Time Lord, and I claim five Gallifreyan shillings.
Just logged on. Will write up the pre-race piece and peruse the markets to see if anything's interesting.0 -
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
Yaaawwwwwnnnnnn.MarqueeMark said:
I'm afraid the reality here is that this episode has shone a bright light into the dark recesses inhabited by the snobby Hyacinth Buckets of the left. There are many metropolitan Labour voters for whom putting their cross in the same box is the only connection whatsoever they have with those who they look down their nose at.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans. That's why what would have made Thornberry's photo extraordinary is if every house in it did have England flags hanging from them and white vans outside.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
Do you think that sort of comment is more likely, or less likely to make people join the kippers, and existing kipper more or less determined to vote. Do carry onStark_Dawning said:
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mark Reckless. The poor man clearly thought he was joining a proper political outfit. Instead he was utterly humiliated by Farage for stating agreed UKIP policy, unaware that such things exist only upon Farage's whim on a given day. What's more UKIP supporters are completely relaxed about this state of affairs. This things a cult.Flightpath said:
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1). 0 -
Yes, like you British integrated in India.Socrates said:
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.0 -
Ed sacked her because he has a particular vulnerability here. His own father disdained the English and said so publicly, he won't accept an English parliament, he supports Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English only matters, he excludes England as one of the nations in his "Senate of the Nations and Regions", and he wants discriminate against people of white English stock in the job market. Ms Thornberry got the short end of the stick for Ed's own failings.SouthamObserver said:
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.0 -
I thought that Populus poll was three years old?CarlottaVance said:
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.0 -
There is nothing noteworthy about an England flag being hung anywhere in England.CarlottaVance said:
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
0 -
What do you mean, "you British"? Aren't you British?Ninoinoz said:
Yes, like you British integrated in India.Socrates said:
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.0 -
It tells me he thought "Oh sh1t. Of course we all think they are frightfully vulgar but we mustn't let them realise that."SouthamObserver said:
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
Eighty or more years ago... why dont we hold all the things we did a Eighty or more years ago up to the light and see how they look.Ninoinoz said:
Yes, like you British integrated in India.Socrates said:
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.0 -
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....SouthamObserver said:
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
And there was I thinking people weren't allowed to sneer any more...Itajai said:
Why are you surprised. A quango stuffed with middle class Gruaniad reading Labourites. I am surprised they didn't mark the school down for not serving quinoa.another_richard said:
Is that this OFSTED:Socrates said:
Yes. You have to be license by OFSTED.SouthamObserver said:
Can the government close down independent schools?Socrates said:Oh, look at the lovely things being taught in Muslim schools in this country:
http://news.sky.com/story/1377667/muslim-pupils-confused-over-sharia-and-uk-law
Pupils at a Muslim school told inspectors it was a woman's job to stay at home and many could not say which laws to follow.
These schools don't need "urgent action". They need to be closed down.
' Ofsted was accused of “political correctness” after downgrading a top rural primary school for effectively being too English.
The education watchdog faced a backlash from MPs and parents following the decision to penalise Middle Rasen primary in Lincolnshire for not having enough black or Asian pupils.
In a report, inspectors said the school was “not yet outstanding” because pupils’ cultural development was limited by a “lack of first-hand experience of the diverse make up of modern British society”. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11240700/School-marked-down-by-Ofsted-for-being-too-white.html
and the OFSTED which didn't notice any problems with Rotherham's Childrens Services ?0 -
Lefty default setting nicely expressedSouthamObserver said:
Yaaawwwwwnnnnnn.MarqueeMark said:
I'm afraid the reality here is that this episode has shone a bright light into the dark recesses inhabited by the snobby Hyacinth Buckets of the left. There are many metropolitan Labour voters for whom putting their cross in the same box is the only connection whatsoever they have with those who they look down their nose at.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans. That's why what would have made Thornberry's photo extraordinary is if every house in it did have England flags hanging from them and white vans outside.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
There is nothing noteworthy about an England flag being hung flown anywhere in England.SouthamObserver said:
There is nothing noteworthy about an England flag being hung anywhere in England.CarlottaVance said:
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
0 -
Hmm. Ladbrokes still hasn't put up the race markets yet. Qualifying finished nearly two hours ago (I deliberately delayed the pre-race piece this time so I didn't end up waiting...). Bit rubbish.0
-
Congratulations on not mentioning Ed's lacklustre response to Rotherham.Socrates said:
Ed sacked her because he has a particular vulnerability here. His own father disdained the English and said so publicly, he won't accept an English parliament, he supports Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English only matters, he excludes England as one of the nations in his "Senate of the Nations and Regions", and he wants discriminate against people of white English stock in the job market. Ms Thornberry got the short end of the stick for Ed's own failings.
Remarkable restraint.0 -
Less likely I'd have thought. Who'd want to join a pseudo-political outfit, advocate its 'policies' and then discovery that such things only exist according to the whim of the leader. Mark Reckless did and the poor man was humiliated. He's going to be a laughing stock amongst the Tories. Why put yourself through that?Indigo said:
Do you think that sort of comment is more likely, or less likely to make people join the kippers, and existing kipper more or less determined to vote. Do carry onStark_Dawning said:
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mark Reckless. The poor man clearly thought he was joining a proper political outfit. Instead he was utterly humiliated by Farage for stating agreed UKIP policy, unaware that such things exist only upon Farage's whim on a given day. What's more UKIP supporters are completely relaxed about this state of affairs. This things a cult.Flightpath said:
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).0 -
Were you there last night? Did I miss you?Morris_Dancer said:Hmm. Ladbrokes still hasn't put up the race markets yet. Qualifying finished nearly two hours ago (I deliberately delayed the pre-race piece this time so I didn't end up waiting...). Bit rubbish.
0 -
Give over even without the tweet, Cameron and the Conservatives were going no where near a brick wall.CarlottaVance said:
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....SouthamObserver said:
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
There excuses were practised and in place.
If you believe the brick wall metaphor, you are deluded.0 -
Well spotted - nearly four - Jan 2011 - they re-tweeted it yesterday.isam said:
I thought that Populus poll was three years old?CarlottaVance said:
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
However, since the BNP have all but disappeared, one would hope people still don't feel 'excluded', 'offended' or 'intimidated' by an English flag, as SO observes, flying an English flag in England is hardly noteworthy......
0 -
It's worse than that. EdM caddishly threw his rubenesque friend into the impact zone.CarlottaVance said:
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....SouthamObserver said:
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
I don't suppose you thought much about the ghettoes in England when you wrote that.Ninoinoz said:
Yes, like you British integrated in India.Socrates said:
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Edit There actually was a lot of integration in SA and India in the beginning, it changed when the lower orders turned up ;-)0 -
It's hardly a welcoming beacon in the gloom to potential defectors, is it?Stark_Dawning said:
Less likely I'd have thought. Who'd want to join a pseudo-political outfit, advocate its 'policies' and then discovery that such things only exist according to the whim of the leader. Mark Reckless did and the poor man was humiliated. He's going to be a laughing stock amongst the Tories. Why put yourself through that?Indigo said:
Do you think that sort of comment is more likely, or less likely to make people join the kippers, and existing kipper more or less determined to vote. Do carry onStark_Dawning said:
I'm starting to feel sorry for Mark Reckless. The poor man clearly thought he was joining a proper political outfit. Instead he was utterly humiliated by Farage for stating agreed UKIP policy, unaware that such things exist only upon Farage's whim on a given day. What's more UKIP supporters are completely relaxed about this state of affairs. This things a cult.Flightpath said:
Immigration and working out how to leave the EU. And they are clueless. Seriously you have to wonder for how long Farage can laugh off his own stupidity and his cult followers bigotry.Stark_Dawning said:
Thanks! Seriously though, immigration policy is UKIP's raison d'être yet it can be altered fundamentally and overnight upon Nigel's whim. Chilling. The whole UKIP thing smacks of cultism.Socrates said:
As best I can understand it:Stark_Dawning said:
I'm thinking of voting UKIP, but before I do can a UKIP supporter explain to me a) what UKIP's immigration policy was before Wednesday b) how it differed after Wednesday. Thanks.Scrapheap_as_was said:Blimey - I leave the PB bubble and all fun and games start happening...
Newly-elected UKIP MP Mark Reckless has accused party leader Nigel Farage of a policy U-turn over EU migration.
In an interview with the Times, the Rochester and Strood MP says: "The policy changed on Wednesday and I'm a bit sore about how I came out of that."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30157507?ocid=socialflow_twitter
(a) The policy before Wednesday was that EU migrants could either (1) apply for permanent residency based on being here 7 years, (2) apply for some other immigration category like family or high-skilled, (3) get a limited 2-year work visa after which they'd have to return home.
(b) The policy now seems to be to have removed category (3) and allow all EU migrants to apply for (1).
0 -
When you say out of touch, what do you mean?SouthamObserver said:
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
Although she tried to pretend otherwise, she had seen this kind of house with flags etc before, because she had tweeted pictures of similar in the past.
If she wasn't sneering, what do you think her motivation to tweet the picture was? She was just unlucky that the house she photographed just happened to be one with flags and a van outside?
I am asking genuinely here, not pretending not to know and being sarcastic etc0 -
You don't think Mr Miliband's intervention has made Cameron's life (a lot) easier?Yorkcity said:
Give over even without the tweet, Cameron and the Conservatives were going no where near a brick wall.CarlottaVance said:
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....SouthamObserver said:
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
There excuses were practised and in place.
If you believe the brick wall metaphor, you are deluded.
And you think I'm deluded......
0 -
Fun bags are better than air bags.....MonikerDiCanio said:
It's worse than that. EdM caddishly threw his rubenesque friend into the impact zone.CarlottaVance said:
Yep - that's about the long & short of it - Labour Uncut had a pretty devastating dissection of the whole mess and the New Statesman pulled few punches in critiquing Miliband's office. I think Nick Robinson yesterday observed that Cameron was in a car hurtling at 100mph towards a brick wall until Miliband inexplicably threw himself in front of it.....SouthamObserver said:
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
0 -
Try looking at the British expats in Spain before making such comments.Indigo said:
Eighty or more years ago... why dont we hold all the things we did a Eighty or more years ago up to the light and see how they look.Ninoinoz said:
Yes, like you British integrated in India.Socrates said:
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.0 -
Mr. Royale, I'm afraid I wasn't there.
Not sure if it's related to Ladbrokes falling asleep [maybe there's some sort of strange inquiry delaying an official grid, but there's nothing on the BBC site] but Betfair's also sluggish.
I'll wait a short time but may come back later if it doesn't kick off soon.0 -
By lower orders, you mean women, of course.Swiss_Bob said:
I don't suppose you thought much about the ghettoes in England when you wrote that.Ninoinoz said:
Yes, like you British integrated in India.Socrates said:
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Edit There actually was a lot of integration in SA and India in the beginning, it changed when the lower orders turned up ;-)0 -
I suspect she was bored...knocking on doors with no one home - sent to campaign in a seat the party weren't making a serious effort in.....oh look - a house with a lot of flags! Snap! Tweet! "Hello, can I count on your support in today's election?"isam said:
If she wasn't sneering, what do you think her motivation to tweet the picture was?SouthamObserver said:
I think she was stupid and that she revealed how out of touch she was. I think Ed over-reacted massively, because he saw a sneer when there wasn't one - which tells us a lot more about Ed than it does about her.isam said:
What is your view on the Thornberry incident then?SouthamObserver said:
But not "a large proportion". Some working class people are very patriotic. Just like some people from other social classes.JohnLilburne said:
Doesn't mean it is an uncommon sight, though. If only 1% of people hang flags from their windows, that is still an awful lot of houses.SouthamObserver said:
I guess my problem is that I base my views on reality. The vast majority of white working class people do not fly flags from their windows or anywhere else and they do not drive white vans.MarqueeMark said:
You need to widen your circle of Lefties if you hold that view.SouthamObserver said:
No they don't. On all counts.Itajai said:
A large proportion of white working class voters hang England flags outside their homes, especially during sporting events. Their fabled vehicle of choice is a white van.AndreaParma_82 said:I've yet not understood the Thornberry fuss. Really, from an outsider it's really difficult to understand the problem of her tweet.
Leftist middle class types think the flag is racist. And uncouth. And flown by the ill educated.
What's revealing is Miliband's hypersensitivity to relations with traditional WWC supporters and gross over reaction to a single, simple tweet. He, or his office, panicked badly and turned a 5 minute wonder into a story we're still discussing days later.....
0 -
In India, it was the other way round. It was the low class workers that went out for the East India Company that integrated. It was when the elite turned up during the British Raj that didn't integrate and brought over their own women.Swiss_Bob said:
I don't suppose you thought much about the ghettoes in England when you wrote that.
Edit There actually was a lot of integration in SA and India in the beginning, it changed when the lower orders turned up ;-)
I have less knowledge of South Africa, but it's my understanding the Afrikaans that got their first were the most racist.0 -
I'm still waiting to hear what you meant by "you British"?Ninoinoz said:
Congratulations on not mentioning Ed's lacklustre response to Rotherham.Socrates said:
Ed sacked her because he has a particular vulnerability here. His own father disdained the English and said so publicly, he won't accept an English parliament, he supports Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English only matters, he excludes England as one of the nations in his "Senate of the Nations and Regions", and he wants discriminate against people of white English stock in the job market. Ms Thornberry got the short end of the stick for Ed's own failings.
Remarkable restraint.0 -
I only noticed because it's a poll that I think is very significant to the whole immigration debate. It was what made me quite sure that UKIP could make big inroads, and has come in handy for betting as a resultCarlottaVance said:
Well spotted - nearly four - Jan 2011 - they re-tweeted it yesterday.isam said:
I thought that Populus poll was three years old?CarlottaVance said:
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
However, since the BNP have all but disappeared, one would hope people still don't feel 'excluded', 'offended' or 'intimidated' by an English flag, as SO observes, flying an English flag in England is hardly noteworthy......
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right0 -
Pathetic.Ninoinoz said:
By lower orders, you mean women, of course.Swiss_Bob said:
I don't suppose you thought much about the ghettoes in England when you wrote that.Ninoinoz said:
Yes, like you British integrated in India.Socrates said:
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Edit There actually was a lot of integration in SA and India in the beginning, it changed when the lower orders turned up ;-)
Why didn't you add homophobic, racist, transgenderist etc and go the whole hog you moron.0 -
I owe Richard Tyndall an apology. I always thought he was misguided in his doubts about Nigel Farage, whom I saw as UKIP's biggest asset. However, seeing how Farage humiliated Mark Reckless - a man who put his livelihood and career on the line for UKIP - and his airy contempt for agreed UKIP policy, I've come to the conclusion that Farage is an unpleasant individual - vainglorious and smug. UKIP should get rid of him.0
-
Other than to wonder where such an emblem might have come from. The cross is a sign going back millennia. The red cross appears all over the place - a Saturnian image. What connection does England have with saturn?Swiss_Bob said:
There is nothing noteworthy about an England flag being hung flown anywhere in England.SouthamObserver said:
There is nothing noteworthy about an England flag being hung anywhere in England.CarlottaVance said:
When asked a couple of days ago (rather than 2 years, in the article you link to)Socrates said:@SouthamObserver
24% of people in this country consider the English flag to be racist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9217620/St-Georges-flag-is-a-racist-symbol-says-a-quarter-of-the-English.html
Do you think these people are politically right of centre?
@Populus Just 7% of public surprised to see England flag on someone's house. 28% feel patriotic, 28% indifferent, 24% proud.
Only 1% (each) felt excluded, offended or intimidated.
http://youtu.be/2o_lHbrkqYo
England was formed in 925 AD by KIng Alfred's grandson Aethelstan, joining Wessex and Mercia with York, bringing three separate countries into a single entity. The outside threat of further Viking aggression was the main drive to join together. Wales complied with the new country being formed, with my ancestor Hwyl Dda agreeing to it, but he did not join it. Had Wales not consented to abide by the creation of England, the Welsh could easily have railroaded its coming into being. Looking at things now, most Welsh people would prefer to have kept England's three states separated. The Welsh defeated the Vikings without any outside help.
0 -
Where do you think the name 'Nino' comes from?Socrates said:
What do you mean, "you British"? Aren't you British?Ninoinoz said:
Yes, like you British integrated in India.Socrates said:
Yes, they are. But Muslim girls and Bengali girls shouldn't have to face a massive social pressure to give up on dreams of achieving things outside the homes because the culture of their community is so backwards. Muslims and Bengalis living in our country need to integrate with our mainstream British culture, not build up separate little enclaves that are mini-Bangladeshs.Ninoinoz said:
But you are not Muslims or Bengalis.Charles said:
1) It's when you impose those rules as a matter of course purely because of someone's gender. My wife and I decided she would give up work when our daughter was born, because we feel that is a better way to raise a child. But we have the luxury of choice: she should not have been obliged to do so because she is a woman.Ninoinoz said:
1) It was a CofE school. They were taught in the home and mosque. In any case, what's wrong with precisely defined gender roles?Socrates said:
1) There's a huge bloody difference between it being acceptable for some women to choose to be homemakers and the belief that it's a woman's "job" to stay at home purely because she's a woman. The latter is highly sexist, and it's appalling that kids in 21st Century Britain are being taught it in schools.
2) Secular law isn't the views of "whatever totalitarian clique" is in power. That's the case in places like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe where the executive comes above the law. We are not like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. We are a superior society where law is held above the executive. Muslim kids need to know that. And they need to know that their arbitrary beliefs about which animals are ok for eating are just something voluntary upon their part, and not something required of everyone.
2) A truly laughable point when the executive controls parliament through whipping. Great example of parliament restraining the executive, that Iraq War.
Other people are allowed to organise their lives differently.
Clue: not the British Isles.0
