politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Doing “Best PM” comparisons between Corbyn & Dave is like

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Thompson, Europe left the medieval world behind centuries ago.

I enjoy comparing classical history (and occasionally medieval history) to the modern world, but I wouldn't vote for a party that wanted to nail people to crosses.

Your argument seems to be against Islamism as so backward it belongs a millennium in the past.

Thank you Mr Dancer you're the one person who seems to have understood what I am saying rather than taken it backwards.

Yes absolutely Islamism is so backwards it belongs to a millenium ago not the modern world. It does not belong in the modern world.

Mr. C, I'd say it's more family friendly, not unlike Stargate: SG-1.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, on the Opinium poll, it's interesting to see the breakdown of best PM (vs Corbyn) by party. Amongst Conservative voters, Boris does better than Osborne, with May in third place.

This is why I was mystified a few weeks ago, during the Tory conference, when people were saying Osborne would be the "centrist" choice while Theresa May would be the "core vote" choice.

May would surely have much more floating-voter appeal than Osborne.

May is more traditional and small-C conservative on social issues, and the daughter of a vicar, Osborne is a metropolitan liberal on social issues. In that sense May is probably more in tune with the classic 'Tory shire' party members, however they haven't forgiven her for giving Labour a free attack line with her 'nasty party' remarks.

On economic issues, I wouldn't have thought there was much difference between the two.

I suspect "they" could be more accurately replaced with "I".

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.

You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?

Away and boil your tiny little head.

Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.

However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you genuinely think this isn't a problem?

Bit of both. I think anyone who wants to force absolutist religion is a disaster and I would be appalled if the 10% proposing it in Sean's survey got power.

My question which went unanswered was how unusual is that, if you were to poll those of other beliefs? Which then got side-tracked into a historical argument.

Well, there's two things there: first, whether anyone of any religious disposition expects their beliefs to be enshrined as the law of the land (questionable, although there were certainly aspects of that in England well into the 17th Century in matters of civil law) and secondly, whether there's a difference in the severity of those proposed laws by religion (e.g Islam v. The Rest).

A third point could be whether or not stricter interpretations of Islam are increasing in prevalence amongst the Muslim community, and what we should do about it.

Personally, I think the answer is yes, and it's an offshoot of the culture wars, plus geopolitics, a reaction to Western imperialism (up to the 60s) in the Middle East, and religious expansionism funded by Saudi Arabia and Iran since the 1970.

There is strong anecdotal evidence that far more veils, niqabs and hijabs are being worn now in Islamic countries than was the case 30 years ago, and that the interpretations of the Koran are becoming more dogmatic.

I agree with all of this. I think dumbing things down to one factor rather than looking at the whole picture (as I said about us in the 21st century UK being more than just Christianity) is missing the forest for a lone tree.

That counts for those backward medieval style Islamists who want to drag us or their own nation back a thousand years too.

Jonathan said:

I suspect "they" could be more accurately replaced with "I".

You suspect wrongly.

MaxPB said:

taffys said:

http://order-order.com/2015/10/20/unions-v-steel-industry/

Guido on the ludicrous position of the unions on energy prices.

Our green taxes, and those across Europe, are actually counter productive. We are just shifting heavy industry to nations where there is more dirty power production because our energy costs are becoming untenable.

Quite right. Yet lefties simultaneously want more green policies, more taxes on business AND steel jobs to stay in the UK.

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.

You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?

Away and boil your tiny little head.

Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.

However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you genuinely think this isn't a problem?

Bit of both. I think anyone who wants to force absolutist religion is a disaster and I would be appalled if the 10% proposing it in Sean's survey got power.

My question which went unanswered was how unusual is that, if you were to poll those of other beliefs? Which then got side-tracked into a historical argument.

My view can only be impressionistic, but I don't think many modern Christians, even devout Christians, want to establish a Christian theocracy. Peter Oborne might, but he's unusual. I don't think that is because Christians are inherently more tolerant than Muslims are, but rather because Christianity does draw a sharper line between the business of secular government, and the business of the Churches (eg Rendering unto Caesar, or Romans 13).

That first part is precisely what I was saying. We have moved on from an age of theocracy. To go back to any form of theocracy would be a retrograde step.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, on the Opinium poll, it's interesting to see the breakdown of best PM (vs Corbyn) by party. Amongst Conservative voters, Boris does better than Osborne, with May in third place.

This is why I was mystified a few weeks ago, during the Tory conference, when people were saying Osborne would be the "centrist" choice while Theresa May would be the "core vote" choice.

May would surely have much more floating-voter appeal than Osborne.

May is more traditional and small-C conservative on social issues, and the daughter of a vicar, Osborne is a metropolitan liberal on social issues. In that sense May is probably more in tune with the classic 'Tory shire' party members, however they haven't forgiven her for giving Labour a free attack line with her 'nasty party' remarks.

On economic issues, I wouldn't have thought there was much difference between the two.

I didn't mean so much in terms of policy/political positioning. It's more that May is more likeable (or, rather, less dislikeable) and comes across as more of a natural leader.

Plus, although it's hard to say how she'd present austerity policies since she's been largely insulated from it, but I get the sense she'd be like Cameron in that she'd be good at the sorrowful tone of "we don't like doing these things but it's necessary for the country". By contrast, the public perception of Osborne is that he positively takes pleasure in battering poor people. He embodies every suspicion people have about the Tories' intentions, in a way that Cameron and (I suspect) May do/would not.

Mr. F, probably the case 1,500 years ago too.

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.

You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?

Away and boil your tiny little head.

Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.

However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you genuinely think this isn't a problem?

Bit of both. I think anyone who wants to force absolutist religion is a disaster and I would be appalled if the 10% proposing it in Sean's survey got power.

My question which went unanswered was how unusual is that, if you were to poll those of other beliefs? Which then got side-tracked into a historical argument.

Well, there's two things there: first, whether anyone of any religious disposition expects their beliefs to be enshrined as the law of the land (questionable, although there were certainly aspects of that in England well into the 17th Century in matters of civil law) and secondly, whether there's a difference in the severity of those proposed laws by religion (e.g Islam v. The Rest).

A third point could be whether or not stricter interpretations of Islam are increasing in prevalence amongst the Muslim community, and what we should do about it.

Personally, I think the answer is yes, and it's an offshoot of the culture wars, plus geopolitics, a reaction to Western imperialism (up to the 60s) in the Middle East, and religious expansionism funded by Saudi Arabia and Iran since the 1970.

There is strong anecdotal evidence that far more veils, niqabs and hijabs are being worn now in Islamic countries than was the case 30 years ago, and that the interpretations of the Koran are becoming more dogmatic.

I agree with all of this. I think dumbing things down to one factor rather than looking at the whole picture (as I said about us in the 21st century UK being more than just Christianity) is missing the forest for a lone tree.

That counts for those backward medieval style Islamists who want to drag us or their own nation back a thousand years too.

Thanks Philip. What do you think we should do about it?

Do you think we can (or should) do anything about it?

JEO said:

JonCisBack said:

Wow - amazed at the epidemic of sad casery on here today

Star Wars is for kids surely??

Even if that was the case, I have far more time for someone into a childish or nerdy hobby than the sort of people who insult others as being "sad cases" or "nerds". The latter are those that have really never matured.

Star Wars is fun. Good films that are made for children can still be enjoyed by adults (like good books that are written for children).

My only objection is to the end of Return of the Jedi, where Imperial Storm Troopers are defeated by an army of *teddy bears.*

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Wisemann, you're coming across as a bit of a self-flagellation enthusiast.

Nope - I dont blame myself for the disgraceful and damaging effects of the transatlantic establishment's depredations in the middle eastern region in the slightest.

JonCisBack said:

Wow - amazed at the epidemic of sad casery on here today

Star Wars is for kids surely??

We're political nerds and you're surprised at other outlets of sad casery from the same people.

#Expectationfail

Mr. Jonathan, I suspect Lucifer would find a new lawyer if that were his argument.

Sean_F said:

JEO said:

JonCisBack said:

Wow - amazed at the epidemic of sad casery on here today

Star Wars is for kids surely??

Even if that was the case, I have far more time for someone into a childish or nerdy hobby than the sort of people who insult others as being "sad cases" or "nerds". The latter are those that have really never matured.

Star Wars is fun. Good films that are made for children can still be enjoyed by adults (like good books that are written for children).

My only objection is to the end of Return of the Jedi, where Imperial Storm Troopers are defeated by an army of *teddy bears.*

Yes of course they can, Pixar films being great examples.

I was referring to the (over) analysis of the plotlines and the general awed treatment of the Star Wars films as being of vast cultural significance...really guys?!

JEO said:

SeanT said:

The ultra-Islamification of Islam is inarguable. I've seen it with my own eyes in 30 years of visiting Egypt. When I went there in the 80s veils were barely visible in Cairo, alcohol was widely drunk, etc

Now veils are ubiquitous and drinkers hide in basements, behind shutters.

'"There used to be seven bars in this area. Now there are only two. It's because everything is forbidden now," said Magdy Michel, who owns Bar Massoud and, like most of Cairo's bar operators, is Christian.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/14/cairo-bars-threatened-as-_n_150859.html

What was once a rather splendid city full of character has, in many places, become grim and dour and horribly impoverished.

Even in London I usually see a woman in a niqab most times I go there these days, when they would have been an occasional sight 15 years ago. I never thought this country would be going backwards on the status of women.

JEO said:

SeanT said:

The ultra-Islamification of Islam is inarguable. I've seen it with my own eyes in 30 years of visiting Egypt. When I went there in the 80s veils were barely visible in Cairo, alcohol was widely drunk, etc

Now veils are ubiquitous and drinkers hide in basements, behind shutters.

'"There used to be seven bars in this area. Now there are only two. It's because everything is forbidden now," said Magdy Michel, who owns Bar Massoud and, like most of Cairo's bar operators, is Christian.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/14/cairo-bars-threatened-as-_n_150859.html

What was once a rather splendid city full of character has, in many places, become grim and dour and horribly impoverished.

Even in London I usually see a woman in a niqab most times I go there these days, when they would have been an occasional sight 15 years ago. I never thought this country would be going backwards on the status of women.

You should visit Luton.

rottenborough said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, on the Opinium poll, it's interesting to see the breakdown of best PM (vs Corbyn) by party. Amongst Conservative voters, Boris does better than Osborne, with May in third place.

This is why I was mystified a few weeks ago, during the Tory conference, when people were saying Osborne would be the "centrist" choice while Theresa May would be the "core vote" choice.

May would surely have much more floating-voter appeal than Osborne.

May is more traditional and small-C conservative on social issues, and the daughter of a vicar, Osborne is a metropolitan liberal on social issues. In that sense May is probably more in tune with the classic 'Tory shire' party members, however they haven't forgiven her for giving Labour a free attack line with her 'nasty party' remarks.

On economic issues, I wouldn't have thought there was much difference between the two.

Correct.

Although I have a long-standing bet on May, I do wonder about her ability to be a political strategist. Osborne has this in spades. Indeed, arguably he has become too inthrall to the 'game'.

They both have their failings.

May is a poor communicator, as evidenced by the hole she dug herself into with her nasty party comments in the first place, arguably another one with her migration speech, and she waffles and sounds evasive in answering questions.

Osborne doesn't really do empathy. He sees politics as a clinical game of chess and, although he's smart with both money and tactics, looks far too pleased with himself whilst he's doing it too: he doesn't always understand the (non-political) implications of his moves.

Boris is charismatic, writes well but only really believes in himself and his ambition and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him - he's a real narcissist.

Tough choice. Who else is there?

SeanT said:

Just in case anyone had any doubts - Muslims in Denmark are now MORE devout than they were ten years ago. 42% want women always wearing scarves, 77% want to follow the Koran completely, etc

http://www.thelocal.dk/20151013/danish-muslims-more-devout-than-in-years-past

Meanwhile 40% of them think the Koran should be accepted as part of Danish law, 10% want Denmark's legislation to be entirely Islamic.

https://www.rt.com/news/319150-denmark-muslims-koran-laws/#.ViZJX8jZRVw.twitter

Whatever happened in the past, Muslims are no longer integrating or assimilating. Quite the opposite. Meanwhile the idiot Merkel wants us to accept millions more.

The outcome will be far right governments across the continent and violent racial strife. It is unavoidable, if we continue down this path.

If Muslims are becoming less keen on assimilating (and I'm not putting any faith in anything published on RT.com!), might that be because they've had over a decade of the rest of us continuously criticising them? Integration seemed to be more successful before Islamophobia became so rampant. Aggressively tell people not to wear headscarves and, guess what, people start wanting to wear headscarves. Put any group under external pressure and they will turn to each other and fall back on their traditions.

As for Merkel wanting us to accept millions more... well, Merkel wants us to accept those fleeing conflict in Syria (and Iraq). Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but that includes a range of religions. There aren't good numbers on the breakdown of different religions in Syria. About 3/4 of the country are Muslim, but you've got maybe ~10% who are Christian, ~10% who are Alawite (which one may or may not consider to be Muslim -- it's complicated), some Druze, some Yazidis, some other Muslim spin-off groups that you may or may not consider Muslim, atheists and agnostics. And with IS and other salafist groups around, the people more likely to flee are the people who aren't Muslim (or who aren't Sunni Muslim). And why do you think Syrian Muslims are particularly like the Muslims already in Denmark, who are mainly of Turkish background? That's like assuming a Protestant from Belfast is just like a Protestant from Blackpool.

What leads to far right governments and racial strife is simplistically lumping people into boxes as being all the same. Presuming all Syrians fleeing Syria are Muslims, and presuming all Muslims are the same as Danish Muslims, and presuming all Muslims can be represented by the 10% or 40% or 42% or 77% who answered particular surveys particular ways is not helping.

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all of this. I think dumbing things down to one factor rather than looking at the whole picture (as I said about us in the 21st century UK being more than just Christianity) is missing the forest for a lone tree.

That counts for those backward medieval style Islamists who want to drag us or their own nation back a thousand years too.

Thanks Philip. What do you think we should do about it?

Do you think we can (or should) do anything about it?

I don't know, its a difficult and complicated question. Some thoughts:

1: End the concept of breaking people down into "communities" and having "community leaders" speak for people. People are individuals not a label, treat them as such.
2: Stand up for our values. They're better and they're ours.
3: Be willing to stand up for other people with views like ours and against those that are hateful and backwards.
4: Find a way to disengage with backwards medieval Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia. They should not be our friends.
5: Work with and encourage relatively better Islamic nations like Indonesia.
6: Stop imagining that Islam only exists in the Middle East. Indonesia has more Muslims than any other nation but hasn't factored into this whole conversation. It has its own problems but is more like its neighbours like Singapore than the Middle East.

That's a start. And my last remarks as I've got work to do now.

Mr. Royale, they could go for the Numa option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numa_Pompilius

Incidentally, I mentioned the other day of a free Plutarch complete work (search Plutarch Arthur on your Kindle), and apparently Numa is one of the chaps covered.

bondegezou said:

SeanT said:

Just in case anyone had any doubts - Muslims in Denmark are now MORE devout than they were ten years ago. 42% want women always wearing scarves, 77% want to follow the Koran completely, etc

http://www.thelocal.dk/20151013/danish-muslims-more-devout-than-in-years-past

Meanwhile 40% of them think the Koran should be accepted as part of Danish law, 10% want Denmark's legislation to be entirely Islamic.

https://www.rt.com/news/319150-denmark-muslims-koran-laws/#.ViZJX8jZRVw.twitter

Whatever happened in the past, Muslims are no longer integrating or assimilating. Quite the opposite. Meanwhile the idiot Merkel wants us to accept millions more.

The outcome will be far right governments across the continent and violent racial strife. It is unavoidable, if we continue down this path.

If Muslims are becoming less keen on assimilating (and I'm not putting any faith in anything published on RT.com!), might that be because they've had over a decade of the rest of us continuously criticising them? Integration seemed to be more successful before Islamophobia became so rampant. Aggressively tell people not to wear headscarves and, guess what, people start wanting to wear headscarves. Put any group under external pressure and they will turn to each other and fall back on their traditions.

.

I think that in general, there are few places where it is better to be a Muslim than in a Western country. There is a high standard of living, you don't get persecuted for following the wrong brand of Islam, and you enjoy a large measure of religious freedom. Nor do you run the risk of barbaric punishments for violating religious laws.

So, I don't really accept the argument that it's down to us.

''Integration seemed to be more successful before Islamophobia became so rampant.''

You need only go to CIF today to see this very argument completely and utterly shot down in flames by a vast majority of the respondents on the thread.

The most liked comment is that Islamophobia is a false construct designed to stop people criticising or satirising islam in the way we criticise other religions.

A phobia is an irrational fear. Fear of islam is not irrational.

Casino_Royale said:

rottenborough said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, on the Opinium poll, it's interesting to see the breakdown of best PM (vs Corbyn) by party. Amongst Conservative voters, Boris does better than Osborne, with May in third place.

This is why I was mystified a few weeks ago, during the Tory conference, when people were saying Osborne would be the "centrist" choice while Theresa May would be the "core vote" choice.

May would surely have much more floating-voter appeal than Osborne.

May is more traditional and small-C conservative on social issues, and the daughter of a vicar, Osborne is a metropolitan liberal on social issues. In that sense May is probably more in tune with the classic 'Tory shire' party members, however they haven't forgiven her for giving Labour a free attack line with her 'nasty party' remarks.

On economic issues, I wouldn't have thought there was much difference between the two.

Correct.

Although I have a long-standing bet on May, I do wonder about her ability to be a political strategist. Osborne has this in spades. Indeed, arguably he has become too inthrall to the 'game'.

They both have their failings.

May is a poor communicator, as evidenced by the hole she dug herself into with her nasty party comments in the first place, arguably another one with her migration speech, and she waffles and sounds evasive in answering questions.

Osborne doesn't really do empathy. He sees politics as a clinical game of chess and, although he's smart with both money and tactics, looks far too pleased with himself whilst he's doing it too: he doesn't always understand the (non-political) implications of his moves.

Boris is charismatic, writes well but only really believes in himself and his ambition and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him - he's a real narcissist.

Tough choice. Who else is there?

Not Javid that's for sure. No idea why he is often touted as future leader.

MaxPB said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.

You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?

Away and boil your tiny little head.

Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.

However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you genuinely think this isn't a problem?

Bit of both. I think anyone who wants to force absolutist religion is a disaster and I would be appalled if the 10% proposing it in Sean's survey got power.

My question which went unanswered was how unusual is that, if you were to poll those of other beliefs? Which then got side-tracked into a historical argument.

Caesar, or Romans 13).

That first part is precisely what I was saying. We have moved on from an age of theocracy. To go back to any form of theocracy would be a retrograde step.

Er, what? So this IS an argument FOR increased Muslim migration, or against it, or, duh? DUHH?

I don't think you actually have any reasoned and coherent opinion of your own, just some liberal reflexes which you thought you could trot out to signal your virtue, instead you tripped over yourself and fell flat on your silly face.

He seems to be one of these deluded people that believes Muslims who come here will suddenly become more liberal and secular. They will magically leave behind their child brides and paedophilia in the hellholes they came from. Oh wait they don't.

The thing is though, that it seems that the most strident Islamists are those who were brought up in the UK... It also strikes me that the 'paedophiles' are often quite young themselves (late teens early 20s) rather than the stereotype of a paedo that I have which is a middle aged, or older,man

Speaking of Islam and controversial remarks, Marine Le Pen has gone on trial:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34580169

SeanT said:

bondegezou said:

SeanT said:

Just in case anyone had any doubts - Muslims in Denmark are now MORE devout than they were ten years ago. 42% want women always wearing scarves, 77% want to follow the Koran completely, etc

http://www.thelocal.dk/20151013/danish-muslims-more-devout-than-in-years-past

Meanwhile 40% of them think the Koran should be accepted as part of Danish law, 10% want Denmark's legislation to be entirely Islamic.

https://www.rt.com/news/319150-denmark-muslims-koran-laws/#.ViZJX8jZRVw.twitter

Whatever happened in the past, Muslims are no longer integrating or assimilating. Quite the opposite. Meanwhile the idiot Merkel wants us to accept millions more.

The outcome will be far right governments across the continent and violent racial strife. It is unavoidable, if we continue down this path.

If Muslims are becoming less keen on assimilating (and I'm not putting any faith in anything published on RT.com!), might that be because they've had over a decade of the rest of us continuously criticising them? Integration seemed to be more successful before Islamophobia became so rampant. Aggressively tell people not to wear headscarves and, guess what, people start wanting to wear headscarves. Put any group under external pressure and they will turn to each other and fall back on their traditions.



What leads to far right governments and racial strife is simplistically lumping people into boxes as being all the same. Presuming all Syrians fleeing Syria are Muslims, and presuming all Muslims are the same as Danish Muslims, and presuming all Muslims can be represented by the 10% or 40% or 42% or 77% who answered particular surveys particular ways is not helping.

Can you actually read?

The poll was not conducted by "RT.com", it was conducted by Willke using Jens Thomsen of Aarhus University, who has been doing such polls for years, writes scholarly works on Islam, etc.

Given that you didn't understand that, we can dismiss the rest of your post as more deluded liberal dribble. You and Mister Thompson should share a spittoon.

Can you actually read?

I said "published on RT.com", not "conducted by". I wouldn't trust RT to correctly report something, however well done the original research was.

Given that you didn't understand that, we can dismiss the rest of your post as more deluded conservative dribble. I'd find you a spittoon, but that would require you to be able to aim...

Sean, if you want to have a discussion, let's have a discussion. If you want to trade insults, we can do that too, but I've probably got better things to do.

SeanT said:

Tykejohnno said:

If this had been my daughter,I would be trying like hell to sue or some other actions against the government,first job of government is to pretect it's people.(fcuk all free movement of people)

Rapist Jailed After 'Needle In A Haystack' Hunt

Police say they were left stumped after Slovakian-born Zdenko Turtak fled the UK without a trace following the "appalling" attack.

http://news.sky.com/story/1572942/rapist-jailed-after-needle-in-a-haystack-hunt

I have literally no idea why that bastard didn't get a life sentence. He bashed her head 18 times with a rock, FFS, before raping her. He could be a free man by his mid 30s.

Tsk.

Totally agree Sean.

MaxPB said:

Well German industry is insulated from higher energy prices, they get massive rebates paid for by consumers for their green folly.

I don't deny that there are a whole bunch of reasons for steel going through tough times in this country. A lot of it is also to do with labour costs, something the Germans are going to come up against soon as well.

My issue is not just with steel though, it's any industry which requires coking and massive carbon release. We have all of these taxes and regulations in regard to these heavy industries, then whinge and whine when affected industries shut down.

My understanding is that the German EEG for "protecting" companies from high energy prices was phased out (or at least cut 90%) last year.

I think it's very hard for polluting industries to continue to exist in crowded, rich, developed countries generally. New facilities are almost impossible to build due to planning restrictions and Nimbyism - or they require such extensive scrubbing to remove pollutants, that they are uncompetitive.

The old facilities we keep, therefore, are unable to compete with newer ones built in places where environmental standards are less strict.

But I agree with your fundament premise that we need to accept that - in a global world, with increasingly fewer trade barriers - we simply aren't going to be able to compete in making dirty stuff.

Mr. Taffys, Mr. Max, we see how some in politics try to control the argument by controlling language through political correctness (see the madness of Benedict Cumberbatch, not a man routinely mistaken in his views for Jeremy Clarkson, apologising profusely for saying 'coloured person' rather than 'person of colour').

Assorted bearded tits are trying that now. We already have a de facto blasphemy 'law'. Islam seeks to make itself immune to criticism using the argument of 'respect', and politicians are generally spineless against this. Anti-terror measures are criticised as 'Islamophobic'.

It's deeply concerning.

Sean_F said:

bondegezou said:

If Muslims are becoming less keen on assimilating (and I'm not putting any faith in anything published on RT.com!), might that be because they've had over a decade of the rest of us continuously criticising them? Integration seemed to be more successful before Islamophobia became so rampant. Aggressively tell people not to wear headscarves and, guess what, people start wanting to wear headscarves. Put any group under external pressure and they will turn to each other and fall back on their traditions.

.

I think that in general, there are few places where it is better to be a Muslim than in a Western country. There is a high standard of living, you don't get persecuted for following the wrong brand of Islam, and you enjoy a large measure of religious freedom. Nor do you run the risk of barbaric punishments for violating religious laws.

So, I don't really accept the argument that it's down to us.

I really don't see how that rebuttal makes much sense. I think that in general there are few places where it is better to be *anything* than in a Western country. That doesn't stop the vast majority of the population complaining about things, because we don't all live our lives thinking about how much better off we are than had we been born in Somalia/Sudan/Syria. Maybe we should, but we don't. It is surely better to be a Conservative here than in China or Ethiopia or Canada, but Conservatives still moan about this and that and want things to be more Conservative.

Muslims here are going to respond to how they are treated, just as Eurosceptics here or Scottish nationalists or naturists or train-spotters respond to how they are treated. Treat a group in a particular way, and they will respond.

It's not about treating any of these groups better than they would be treated in some distant country. It's about how members of these groups here are treated compared to how other people here are treated.

If everyone makes a big fuss about headscarves, then people assume headscarf wearing is a really important thing.

SeanT said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SeanT said:

There are none so blind as those with an IQ of about 7.

You're just a deluded liberal cretin. Look at countries run by Koranic principles, like, say Saudi, or Iran. Do they look "very very similar" to countries run according to Judaeo-Christian precepts?

Away and boil your tiny little head.

Yes they do look the same. They look exactly like medieval Christian nations that were ran to Christian precepts. Tell me please what is going on in say Saudi or Iran that (technological progress aside) could never have happened in a Medieval Christian nation.

However as I said we more than just a Christian nation.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you just playing devil's advocate, or do you genuinely think this isn't a problem?

Bit of both. I think anyone who wants to force absolutist religion is a disaster and I would be appalled if the 10% proposing it in Sean's survey got power.

My question which went unanswered was how unusual is that, if you were to poll those of other beliefs? Which then got side-tracked into a historical argument.

Personally, I think the answer is yes, and it's an offshoot of the culture wars, plus geopolitics, a reaction to Western imperialism (up to the 60s) in the Middle East, and religious expansionism funded by Saudi Arabia and Iran since the 1970.

There is strong anecdotal evidence that far more veils, niqabs and hijabs are being worn now in Islamic countries than was the case 30 years ago, and that the interpretations of the Koran are becoming more dogmatic.

The ultra-Islamification of Islam is inarguable. I've seen it with my own eyes in 30 years of visiting Egypt. When I went there in the 80s veils were barely visible in Cairo, alcohol was widely drunk, etc

Now veils are ubiquitous and drinkers hide in basements, behind shutters.

'"There used to be seven bars in this area. Now there are only two. It's because everything is forbidden now," said Magdy Michel, who owns Bar Massoud and, like most of Cairo's bar operators, is Christian.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/14/cairo-bars-threatened-as-_n_150859.html

What was once a rather splendid city full of character has, in many places, become grim and dour and horribly impoverished.

Slightly ironic then that we're in the process of supporting uprisings/bombing the moderate Muslim countries and turning them into extreme ones. This applies to Libya, Syria, would have applied to Egypt, and arguably even applies to Iraq.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Slightly ironic then that we're in the process of supporting uprisings/bombing the moderate Muslim countries and turning them into extreme ones. This applies to Libya, Syria, would have applied to Egypt, and arguably even applies to Iraq.

It's going to take a lot of time for al-Sisi to undo the damage done by the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi.

SeanT said:

bondegezou said:

SeanT said:

bondegezou said:

SeanT said:

Just in case anyone had any doubts - Muslims in Denmark are now MORE devout than they were ten years ago. 42% want women always wearing scarves, 77% want to follow the Koran completely, etc

http://www.thelocal.dk/20151013/danish-muslims-more-devout-than-in-years-past

Meanwhile 40% of them think the Koran should be accepted as part of Danish law, 10% want Denmark's legislation to be entirely Islamic.

https://www.rt.com/news/319150-denmark-muslims-koran-laws/#.ViZJX8jZRVw.twitter

Whatever happened in the past, Muslims are no longer integrating or assimilating. Quite the opposite. Meanwhile the idiot Merkel wants us to accept millions more.

The outcome will be far right governments across the continent and violent racial strife. It is unavoidable, if we continue down this path.

, and presuming all Muslims can be represented by the 10% or 40% or 42% or 77% who answered particular surveys particular ways is not helping.

Can you actually read?

The poll was not conducted by "RT.com", it was conducted by Willke using Jens Thomsen of Aarhus University, who has been doing such polls for years, writes scholarly works on Islam, etc.

Given that you didn't understand that, we can dismiss the rest of your post as more deluded liberal dribble. You and Mister Thompson should share a spittoon.

Can you actually read?

I said "published on RT.com", not "conducted by". I wouldn't trust RT to correctly report something, however well done the original research was.

Given that you didn't understand that, we can dismiss the rest of your post as more deluded conservative dribble. I'd find you a spittoon, but that would require you to be able to aim...

Sean, if you want to have a discussion, let's have a discussion. If you want to trade insults, we can do that too, but I've probably got better things to do.

Agreed, I don't want to waste my time arguing, either. But that's not because it will devolve to simple abuse, but because I think, judging by your prior post about *Islamophobia*, that you are too stupid to be profitably debated.

I think you've already devolved to simple abuse...

When you feel confident enough in your position to actually have a debate, I'm sure we can return to the matter. Ta ta for now.

TGOHF said:

richardDodd said:

Some of the Labour speakers in the debate keep describing a Britain that I have yet to see in the last fifty years..they almost get round to saying that kids are being shoved up chimneys or their families will all starve to death tomorrow... it is total nonsense..do they ever really walk around the streets of our cities and towns..

They have signalled their virtue - they care for poor people - they can now sleep at night.

And you signal your "hard-headed practicality and understanding of the real world" by disdaining them. We are all virtue signalling all of the time. It's just that we all hold different virtues dear.

rottenborough said:

Casino_Royale said:

rottenborough said:

Casino_Royale said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Incidentally, on the Opinium poll, it's interesting to see the breakdown of best PM (vs Corbyn) by party. Amongst Conservative voters, Boris does better than Osborne, with May in third place.

This is why I was mystified a few weeks ago, during the Tory conference, when people were saying Osborne would be the "centrist" choice while Theresa May would be the "core vote" choice.

May would surely have much more floating-voter appeal than Osborne.

May is more traditional and small-C conservative on social issues, and the daughter of a vicar, Osborne is a metropolitan liberal on social issues. In that sense May is probably more in tune with the classic 'Tory shire' party members, however they haven't forgiven her for giving Labour a free attack line with her 'nasty party' remarks.

On economic issues, I wouldn't have thought there was much difference between the two.

Correct.

Although I have a long-standing bet on May, I do wonder about her ability to be a political strategist. Osborne has this in spades. Indeed, arguably he has become too inthrall to the 'game'.

They both have their failings.

May is a poor communicator, as evidenced by the hole she dug herself into with her nasty party comments in the first place, arguably another one with her migration speech, and she waffles and sounds evasive in answering questions.

Osborne doesn't really do empathy. He sees politics as a clinical game of chess and, although he's smart with both money and tactics, looks far too pleased with himself whilst he's doing it too: he doesn't always understand the (non-political) implications of his moves.

Boris is charismatic, writes well but only really believes in himself and his ambition and I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him - he's a real narcissist.

Tough choice. Who else is there?

Not Javid that's for sure. No idea why he is often touted as future leader.

I fear Javid is Osborne's understudy.

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I agree with all of this. I think dumbing things down to one factor rather than looking at the whole picture (as I said about us in the 21st century UK being more than just Christianity) is missing the forest for a lone tree.

That counts for those backward medieval style Islamists who want to drag us or their own nation back a thousand years too.

Thanks Philip. What do you think we should do about it?

Do you think we can (or should) do anything about it?

I don't know, its a difficult and complicated question. Some thoughts:

1: End the concept of breaking people down into "communities" and having "community leaders" speak for people. People are individuals not a label, treat them as such.
2: Stand up for our values. They're better and they're ours.
3: Be willing to stand up for other people with views like ours and against those that are hateful and backwards.
4: Find a way to disengage with backwards medieval Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia. They should not be our friends.
5: Work with and encourage relatively better Islamic nations like Indonesia.
6: Stop imagining that Islam only exists in the Middle East. Indonesia has more Muslims than any other nation but hasn't factored into this whole conversation. It has its own problems but is more like its neighbours like Singapore than the Middle East.

That's a start. And my last remarks as I've got work to do now.

I think I agree with all of that. Thank you.

Again, the point isn't the rights or wrongs of what is happening, but the trend.

The tectonic plates of politics in Europe appear to be shifting sharply rightward. And if that is the case, that will have implications.

taffys said:

''Muslims here are going to respond to how they are treated, just as Eurosceptics here or Scottish nationalists or naturists or train-spotters respond to how they are treated. Treat a group in a particular way, and they will respond.''

I would argue that muslims are far less likely to be killed or imprisoned without trial in Britain than in many muslim countries.

Muslims are extraordinarily well treated in Britain.

I would argue that everyone is far less likely to be killed or imprisoned without trial in Britain than in many Muslim countries, and many other, non-Muslim countries. But people judge what's happening to them by looking at their neighbours, not at someone in another country.

When you wonder if you're being paid enough, do you think, "Well, I'm earning vastly more than the average person in Bolivia?" Or do you think, "Jones in the office just got a new car. He seems to be doing better than me."

When you wonder if council housing is handed out fairly, do you think, "There's practically no social housing available in Burma!" Or do you think, "Why did the family next door appear to get fast-tracked when I've been on the waiting list forever?"

People in Britain, in whatever groups, will see how they are treated compared to other people in Britain... and basic British fairness tells me the starting point should be to treat everyone in Britain the same, ceteris paribus.

If we all, if British society picks out one group for attention, for condemnation, members of that group are not going to think, "Well, at least we're not in the Democratic Republic of Congo!" No, they're going to ask, "Why treat us like that and not our neighbours?" And they will become alienated from us, from our society.

bondegezou said:

taffys said:

''Muslims here are going to respond to how they are treated, just as Eurosceptics here or Scottish nationalists or naturists or train-spotters respond to how they are treated. Treat a group in a particular way, and they will respond.''

I would argue that muslims are far less likely to be killed or imprisoned without trial in Britain than in many muslim countries.

Muslims are extraordinarily well treated in Britain.

I would argue that everyone is far less likely to be killed or imprisoned without trial in Britain than in many Muslim countries, and many other, non-Muslim countries. But people judge what's happening to them by looking at their neighbours, not at someone in another country.

When you wonder if you're being paid enough, do you think, "Well, I'm earning vastly more than the average person in Bolivia?" Or do you think, "Jones in the office just got a new car. He seems to be doing better than me."

When you wonder if council housing is handed out fairly, do you think, "There's practically no social housing available in Burma!" Or do you think, "Why did the family next door appear to get fast-tracked when I've been on the waiting list forever?"

People in Britain, in whatever groups, will see how they are treated compared to other people in Britain... and basic British fairness tells me the starting point should be to treat everyone in Britain the same, ceteris paribus.

If we all, if British society picks out one group for attention, for condemnation, members of that group are not going to think, "Well, at least we're not in the Democratic Republic of Congo!" No, they're going to ask, "Why treat us like that and not our neighbours?" And they will become alienated from us, from our society.

" ... the starting point should be to treat everyone in Britain the same ..."

You haven't done your diversity training have you? Treating all people the same is an absolute no-no. Report to your nearest diversity co-ordinator for re-education.

SO

'What's the best way of preventing dirt poor peasants from rising up against their masters? Give them religion."

You're not stealing Marx's ideas are you??

(Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people).

Razedabode said:

watford30 said:

taffys said:

It suddenly strikes me that Cameron's opponents are betting very heavily politically on tax credit cuts returning the poor to the 1930s.

They had better be correct.

The same people are desperately hoping for a cold Winter and thousands of extra deaths in the NHS.

Don't forget a recession next year, too.

Nah, 2017 or maybe 2018 is when the next downturn will likely hit, maybe 2019 at a pinch. They normally happen roughly every ten years or so, we dodged the one we should have had at about the turn of the century but that, probably, just made the next one early and worse.

rcs1000 said:

@MaxPB

Re steel, we actually import very little steel from China - about 750,000 tonnes, out of total steel imports of perhaps 10x that. We also export about 8,000,000 tonnes of steel in a typical year.

It's very easy to say "oh, our steel industry is disadvantaged because of expensive energy". But if that's the sole factor, it's hard to reconcile with the fact that we import twice as much steel from Germany as from China, and Germany is a much, much more expensive energy market than the UK. We also import more steel from Spain, which is also a much more expensive energy market.

World steel demand, given the slowdown in China, is shrinking. This means that prices everywhere are down, and marginal plants are going to get shut. This means older plants, plants which pay a lot for energy, plants with expensive workforces, plants in high tax countries, plants which make only commodity rolled steel, and plants where it is cheap to shut down.

Solely blaming high energy prices, when we actually have energy prices that are lower than - for example - Germany, Spain, France, and Japan, is just lazy.

You are making a point I have made several time re UK manufacturing. Our issue isn't so called LCCs we have large slabs of our manufactures deficit importing medium technology items from high cost coutries, Our deficit problems are structural ones rather than simply cost driven.

It remains to be seen what HMG will actually do to tackle the issue, so far GO has done very lttle.

bondegezou said:

JEO said:

bondegezou said:

It's not about treating any of these groups better than they would be treated in some distant country. It's about how members of these groups here are treated compared to how other people here are treated.

If you respond to a conflict between Western values and conservative Islam, by clinging ever closer to conservative Islam, then you were never that integrated to begin with.

What's your background, JEO? Are you proud of your heritage, whatever it is? If I told you that you must be ashamed of your background, that you must give up whatever traditions you've inherited, would you not feel protective of your background, would you not stand up for it?

I've a British friend now living in the US. He had zero interest in cricket when he lived here, but when he's in the States, he'll proudly defend cricket.

When Emily Thornberry made that silly tweet about English flags, didn't people rush to defend their right to hang English flags everywhere, even people who hadn't hung an English flag anywhere for years?

That's human nature. You can cast this as some clash of civilisations, between Western values and conservative Islam, or you can see it as people being protective of their heritage. I'm not saying this is the answer to everything; I am saying that groups on the defensive turn to each other and their common background. Small-c conservatism commonly arises when groups feel under attack.

I was thinking about this just yesterday as I plodded an all time record bad time for 5k round South Hornchurch... I noticed an England flag in a back garden and thought 'why would someone feel the need to raise a flag?' The answer that came to me was 'insecurity and fear that they're being marginalised'. In the area that I live (East London/Essex border) you can see the number of St George flags gradually increase (from none in Upminster) as you get the tube from Upminster to West Ham... My guess this is that the more immigrants live in the area, the more the wwc feel the need to stand up for themselves by showing a flag and the same person would not feel the need to do so if they lived in Upminster