Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Ed Miliband compares to his predecessors
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How Ed Miliband compares to his predecessors
Now that we’re just a little under two years from the General Election, I thought it might be useful to see how Dave and Ed compare to the predecessors as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and used their net approval ratings with Ipsos-Mori
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Well, that [should] could cut down many of the arguments in this thread I would foresee appearing.
(the most likely scenario, imho)
At the time Kinnock was on -6 Thatcher was on -54 (Cameron today is on -21).
We've a looong two years ahead of us.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22656657
Is there anything we could do to offer help, considering our experiences stamping out the riots?
Lords 2nd Reading is on 3 June - first day back.
First two days of Committee stage are on 17 and 19 June.
Not sure how many Committee days there will be (there were 7 days in the Commons). But looks as if the plan is to proceed as fast as possible.
EdM is clearly generally disliked but is he more unpopular than Cameron ?
There are already 75 Peers down to speak in the Second Reading debate...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22664835
and
How much of a lead the PM enjoys (or doesn't enjoy) over the Leader of the opposition two years before a general election.
Now back to the cricket.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
However, I was instead getting the numbers from page 221, which get much lower numbers, like 9% for Turkey. This was, I believe, because it was asked of all Muslims, including the moderates who do not support sharia.
Where does your 3% number come from?
I also note on the previous thread you accuse me of both not bothering to read the report properly to understand the numbers, and also of deliberately lying about the numbers in order to "stir up hatred". Surely the two accusations are mutually exclusive? Which one do you believe?
Frankly, you have made some rather nasty allegations on that thread. Other than the matters of fact, which I accept I may always be incorrect about - and will apologise for if I turn out to be - may I ask which phrases were the "bigotry" and the "stirring up of hatred"?
Although I think you have gone off the cliff a bit in this debate, I do think you are a man of principle and intellectual honesty, so I think you will be capable of either substantiating your claims or acknowledging you have been wrong.
12% of 29% is 3%
29% of those Muslims in Turkey who think Sharia should be the law of the land think that the punishment for adultery should be stoning (p. 54). In Turkey, 12% Muslims favour making Sharia the law of the land (p. 46). Ergo the percentage of Turkish Muslims who favour stoning as a punishment for adultery is 3.4% (0.29*0.12).
OK, pedant.
"Under the single-member constituency system, Miliband can still lose the election yet win most seats."
And last time I looked, that's going to be FPTP, not AV...
Labour gaining around 40 seats.
Tories easily having the most votes (perhaps a million more than Labour).
Labour the most seats, and EdM in pole position for Downing Street...
I remember Thatcher being a national joke before she became PM but then popular Uncle Jim couldn't sort out the strikes and............ the nightmare began......
Your original contention was that the majority of muslims in the world are extremists. The Pew report shows that to be absolutely untrue. Indeed they ask the very question about the type of event that sparked this discussion and found that in every region a vast majority disagreed with suicide bombings and other forms of attacks on civilians.
Painting the majority of an entire religion as being extremist, particularly in the current climate, and then trying to support that with false and selective data is very clearly going to stir up hatred. It is the very thing that parties like the BNP and the white supremacists in America do all the time.
I think your behaviour on here regarding this issue has been shameful and it has radically changed the way I view you.
The point about socio-economic development is one I put to @Socrates earlier and he asked me to find some evidence. There is another, albeit not directly comparable Pew Poll for African countries, which can be found here. The findings for Christians are interesting. 70% of those in Ghana, 77% of those in Zambia, 63% of those in Liberia and 66% of those in South Africa support the view that the Bible should be the law of the land (p. 285). It seems that @Socrates' base prejudice against Muslims is behind his arguments once again.
I'm not sure it does. The situation on the blue side of the house at this point is such that Ed can be a donkey, as long as he's relatively uncontroversial, and Labour should still come out ahead.
If the economy shows a genuine sign of recovery, one that people can see, and the Tories as a party can focus on what they should focus upon, that is winning elections and getting power then Miliband 's merits (or lack of) become way more relevant and way more of a weapon.
"As you know there's much ventilating going on about corporate tax rates about the place. Special venom is reserved for Ireland's low rate and various development charities are turning the air blue with complaints about taxes in the developing countries. The thing is though, a small and open economy like Ireland should have a low corporation tax rate: and developing countries should probably have one of zero."
"The reason is that thing called tax incidence. Companies don't pay corporation tax: it's some combination of the shareholders and the workers who do. This is not a point in argument: the only argument is about what the portions are, not the fact that the burden falls upon these two groups. We also know what it is that influences which group: it's how large the economy is in relation to the world economy and how open it is to capital movement. The smaller and more mobile, the more the workers get it in the neck."
Read the rest here, and why lefties' hand-wringing about corporate tax is actually harmful to people they claim to want to help...
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/why-ireland-and-developing-countries-should-have-a-low-corporate-tax-rate
to read the Bill a second time. It's likely that it will be voted on late in the day, so he's hoping to catch supporters of the bill out. If he succeeds then it could cause an indefinite delay.
It's dubious that the reasoned amendment to the Second Reading will be approved, and even if it is, you can bet the Bill will be passed under the provisions of section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, given the level of cross-party support in the House of Commons.
Edit. Even more interesting only one of those 5 states is in the south.
You have really disappointed me here in your lack of good faith. I am simply describing the factual reality, however politically inconvenient, and that is something very different from stirring up hatred. Just because unpleasant people use the same facts for other ends does not make me the same as them. I very much follow Christopher Hitchens advice that one should make their arguments as if one was writing posthumously: you should not feel bound by common political wisdom or how others may react.
I do not believe the majority of Muslims support terrorism. However, support for terrorism is only one form of extremism. Most Muslims believe in the rule of law rather than extrajudicial action. It's just that they believe in an extreme type of law. If you believe that people should be stoned for things like adultery, you hold an extreme view and you are an extremist.
From the best data we have available, it seems like the majority of Muslims in the world support stoning for at least one sort of crime. You have claimed I have lied about this data, and you have been shown to be utterly mistaken. I expected someone like yourself to be able to admit when they have been wrong about something, but unfortunately you haven't been able to this. I hope that when you go away, calm down and think this over you would be able to do so.
It is tiresome to have to do this over and over, but I will make clear my overall views about Islam and Muslims once again. I believe only a small minority support terrorism. I believe a majority worldwide, and a large minority in the West, have extremist views of one kind or the other. I believe a large minority worldwide, and a majority in the West have views that can broadly fit in with Western democracy, although are questionable in some areas like freedom of speech. I believe there is a small minority whose views one can appropriately describe as properly classical liberal. I believe such Muslims are admirable and I am glad to have them as part of British society.
I believe Muslims are perfectly capable of shaping a form of Islam that is consistent with liberal democracy and I would dearly like such a movement to become mainstream. I would like Muslims in Britain to integrate fully as I believe one can be British and liberal democratic regardless of religion. I believe there are Muslim organisations, like Quilliam, that are fully aligned with this goal and I strongly support and admire them.
If you really think such views are bigoted, I find that very sad.
And if you want to divorce your adulterous spouse then do it in South Carolina since the divorce laws codified at South Carolina Code Section 20-3-60(A) deny alimony to the adulterous spouse.
Your whole contention is false and, I repeat, bigoted. More than that it is a position which provides support to the extremists in Britain who want to use terrorist attacks as a justification for attacking the whole Muslim community here.
I am an atheist. I pretty much detest religion of all kinds. But to try and paint one very large section of the world's population as extremist based on no evidence at all is downright wrong.
I suspect from the comments posted by others you are in a very small minority which at least is some comfort. But I am afraid your contentions here today have done huge damage to my opinion of you.
Secondly, you are correct when you say it is not directly comparable. I do not believe Muslims that support sharia law, or Christians that support biblical law, are necessarily extremists as there are multiple interpretations of both types of law. It is fairly common for religious types to simply find an interpretation, however tenuous, that ignores the unpleasant bits of their religion. In regards to the direct issue of stoning, it is worth bearing in mind that the last word in the Bible on this was Jesus of Nazareth stating "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", a clear teaching against the practice.
We actually had our first major roof repair for about six years come in last week.
Perhaps, just perhaps, things are starting to get better?
"No matter how often you repeat a falsehood that does not make it true. You have no where shown that the majority of muslims are extremists even by your own terms since that relies upon manipulated, partial and false data."
Your claims of manipulation and false data were shown up entirely by the data on page 221, which you haven't been able to respond to. Your entire argument rests on this fundamental falsity.
I agree the data is partial, but I believe the estimations by using nearby countries' data is broadly reasonable. If we get data from those countries which show my estimates were too high, and this changes the overall outcome, I am happy to withdraw the claim. However, ultimately whether it's a narrow majority or a narrow minority it doesn't really matter. The reality is that around 600m Muslims or so have extremist views.
I am sorry that pointing out this fact upsets people so much.
I think it's fair to say that there's little likelihood of Ed Miliband's ratings improving as voters take a closer look. He's not the disaster which many on here and elsewhere were saying in 2011, but he's not very good. He might be good enough to become the next PM by default, especially since the Tories seem to have rediscovered their old habit of wanting to lose elections.
- Labour selected Margaret Greenwood in Wirral West.
- The Tories apparently ditched Edgbaston in favour of Northfield as top target in Birmingham
- Usual round of deselections for Labour in Redbridge. Dropped Cllrs switching to Independents
- Plaid Euro list: 1) Jill Evans MEP 2) Marc Jones 3) Stephen Cornelius 4) Ioan Bellin
- Conservatives have announced shortlists of candidates to be ranked by membership for some Euro regions (London, North West, South West) but as incumbents have been re-selected at the top there, newcomers don't have a real chance of being elected (assuming Con won't gain seats next year). If you are interested in some of these regions, I can go and search for the names again (they are somewhere on ConHome)
21"18 If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, 19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. 20 "And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 "Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear,"
22 "20 But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you,"
This is from the holiest book in the Christian faith. Our children are encouraged to read this book to this very day.
If Rod Crosby is right and Miliband becomes PM after losing the election, the 2015-2020 parliament should certainly be "interesting" in light of that fact and Ed having to make cuts while his voters will be expecting business as usual.
You're not even using arguments any more!
A simple question - have the intellectual honesty to respond: does the data on page 221 cover the entire Muslim population of each country or not?
On Deuteronomy, yes, it's disgusting. However, most Christians believe that such law has been replaced by the teachings of the Gospels, or don't even know that passages exist.
Some say divided parties go down in the polls, but equally the party may be divided because they are down in the polls.
There's a guy who analysed the local elections for 40 years, and concluded on Labour's performance in 2012 that there was an 86% chance (IIRC) that the Tories would win the PV in 2015.
And Labour did worse relatively this year than last...
http://www.clevelandseniors.com/forever/oddlaws.htm
I've (been) driven through Ohio and it seemed normal to me.
Michigan Penal Code, Chapter 750, section 32: So if you get divorced in South Carolina, don't move to Michigan!
Just watched the highlights on the BBC. Will have a quick look at the odds and see how things stack up.
Title: The Unwanted Prime Minister... perhaps...?
I'm quite happy to admit that there is a large minority, at least, of African Christians that have extremist views. The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill, for instance, initially included a clause for the death penalty for gay acts. That wouldn't have happened without widespread support in the country. Such views are a widespread problem and I wouldn't want people supporting them immigrating to the UK.
John 8:1 to 8:11
8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
FG - 26%
FF - 26%
SF - 16%
Lab - 11%
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10080737/French-soldier-stabbed-in-Paris.html
But I didn't tip those bets and I wouldn't make those bets if I hadn't already backed the drivers to win. Hmm.
Do you have a link to your list of Conservative targets please? I have already bookmarked the Labour ones on my main computer.
Support the party with far more votes, or the party with more seats in (they believe) an illegitimate system.
Oh...sorry....durrr... It's the LibDems. They'll just mouth some pieties and then do what is in their party political interest.
Actually, they would have a pretty strong hand if the election produces a wrong winner...
What would Labour's answer be to the fairness question?
It is perfectly true that the Old Testament does not bind gentiles. Yet Christianity has historically been fundamentally and violently intolerant. Aquinas strongly supported the execution of relapsed heretics, and vigorous crusading against Jews and Infidels who threatened to institute dominium over Christians
The LDs could say we're not going to enter into coalition with a party which has lost the election, unless they agree to change the system to prevent a re-occurrence.
The public would probably back that, so Labour would be left to limp on in a minority situation, if they dared, or they might simply decline to take office...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dEk1TlVqMHhNUXFBWlhSNU1hd0FYSHc#gid=0
Labour targets for anyone who's interested:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDRiT1FSRTF2bjVYRThSTnRaNzFXMlE#gid=0
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/germany-worlds-most-popular-country/story-fni0xqll-1226649635537
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFkzTjFrRmJRN3F6ODBTTEs4NGFhcUE#gid=0
Makes one wonder whether he might have allegedly had anything to do with the fire that almost destroyed the ship in 2007:
http://news.sky.com/story/1095577/woolwich-murder-suspect-held-two-months-ago
"All very well but there's not a good restaurant to be had for love nor money in Frankfurt."
Move to Hamburg or Berlin. But I take your point and they are getting better
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/25/woolwich-attack-islam
The simple answer is: support them to take land from someone else. The next problem is how do you facilitate that in a complex society where many noble families were interrelated across national boundaries. The answer: find someone who is outside that network. Next, how do you justify it: find moral purpose (originally abuse of pilgrims) to give legitimacy.
Very little to do with Christianity per se.
(and by the way - the Adonis "offer" to the LibDems was silly. It gave them no economic post. They won't accept that.)
It is interesting that you appear to support the materialist, and for that matter neo-Marxian interpretation of the origins of the Crusades. It is a view which has been increasingly rejected in the historiography, where ideological and religious motivations have been stressed as paramount. I would recommend you read the works of J.S.C. Riley-Smith, I.S. Robinson, and C. Hillenbrand before commenting further.
Trouble is I can't. Your original contention was false and you have tried to support it in a way I find totally dishonest.
On the specific of Turkey there is clearly a problem with the two sets of data we are using even though they are from the same source. I find it unconvincing that those who do not support Sharia law would still agree with the most extreme element of that law for reasons of religious belief. So we return to the point that both I and others have made which is that there is clearly a socio-economic element in the findings. Of course you won't accept this because you are so desperate for this to be all about muslim extremism and nothing else will be considered but that bigoted view.
Even so, your desperate attempts to make the numbers add up to a majority of muslims by filling in the gaps to suit your argument show that in truth you do not have a reasoned argument to present.
You want the majority of muslims to be extremists even though the survey you are relying on itself says that the evidence is exactly the opposite.
As I said before it is very sad as until now I thought you far far better than that. Providing the BNP and EDL with the (false) intellectual basis for their arguments is nothing to be proud of.
Just one thought.
No12 in the Olympic Medal table last year and now this, Time for Yorkshire to cast off the underperforming UK rump, and fulfill our destiny