Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
There'll be no need to imagine what the PLP meeting will be like - we'll have another multiply-reported tweetfest.
"For the time being the LAB leader and his MPs are stuck with each other in a loveless forced marriage and will be for the foreseeable future." - A very good way of putting it. The question is, who instigates divorce proceedings first?
MP deselection would be a big mistake. In many cases it would lead to the subsequent loss of the constituency. Ultimately, though, it is the only weapon Corbyn really has. We'll see it start to happen relatively soon, I guess. Then the shit will really hit the fan.
No need. The boundary review will assist greatly in expediting deselections. I do wonder whether Corbyn will support boundary review, even though removing their undersized seats will damage Labour, in the overt name of 'fairness' but actually because it makes effective deselection so much easier.
Doesn't it depend on who is affected, how selection processes for new seats work and timeframes? Sitting Labour MPs fighting as Independent Labour candidates on either current or new boundaries would be likely to significantly eat into the Labour vote - especially if they are high profile.
Yes, it very much depends on that. But with Corbyn and his mates on the NEC controlling the processes now, it'll be easier to ease out 'difficult' MPs. On the other hand, you're right about the effect if an effectively deselected MP chooses to fight on as an independent or with a splinter party.
Sounds like another clever wheeze to persuade people to go to A&E when they're in pain.
How the hell are you lot all on NHS dentists ?
NHS dentists here are advertising heavily for more patients, I think, again there may be a problem with NHS England that just does not exist in Scotland.
In all the excitement (I have popcorn all over my computer keyboard) - is it me or have we heard next to nothing about the LibDem position on ISIS bombing?
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.
Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.
Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.
Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.
The date of the vote was clearly picked for politics, but Cameron wanted to bomb in Syria long before Corbyn became leader,mi doubt it's a factor in what he wants to do, only instead how he does it.
In all the excitement (I have popcorn all over my computer keyboard) - is it me or have we heard next to nothing about the LibDem position on ISIS bombing?
We've heard nothing, nothing at all about the LibDems since May. :-)
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
The NHS procedure is now very very different for a filling. Unless my dentists is running a pilot. You now get an initial assessment, you get a cleaning, and told to come back in three months. If in those three months your oral hygiene has not improved, you will not get treatment.
Its the equivalent of being told you wont get medical treatment until you stop smoking/improve diet.
Whether it is right or wrong, it is quite a bold step in publicly funded health provision.
Wow, is that a one-off or is this now a standard thing?
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
That's not standard practise. It does sound as if your dentist is trying to force you to use expensive non-NHS treatment which is absolutely un-necessary for all things (apart from white fillings thanks to governments complete failure to stand up to the Dental cabal).
Change dentist or report him to the ombudsman (personally I think it would be safer to just change dentist but still report him).
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.
I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.
In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.
Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Mr. Dair, waiting for a new dentist myself. Registered with a practice and have been seen by them regularly for years, but seems they're a dentist short. If I haven't heard back from them soon I'll wander up and see how things stand (not too worried, but there's certainly the demand for them here).
Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.
Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.
Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.
Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.
It may or may not - we are pretty out there safety-wise (ie not at all safe, and but for the work of the security services, demonstrably so) and I would ask whether being a bit more or less safe in that context means anything.
Even lefties get this: tim himself made the good, if godwin-esque analogy about WWII. We went to war with Hitler. Did it make us feel more or less safe?
Sounds like another clever wheeze to persuade people to go to A&E when they're in pain.
How the hell are you lot all on NHS dentists ?
NHS dentists here are advertising heavily for more patients, I think, again there may be a problem with NHS England that just does not exist in Scotland.
It might be something to do with numbers of people
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
David - the way you have arrived at your figures means that 20% (rather than 10%) of those former Labour voters, who actually vote on Thursday switch to UKIP. That's a very big ask.
It'd be unusual but not all that unusual for a by-election and I think it's consistent with the noises coming out of the constituency. Scotland saw far bigger direct defections from Labour at the GE in many seats.
I should say that the figures I quoted are just an early morning, finger-in-the-air scenario but I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable one. The original point was that there's no good reason to assume that the seat is not very much in play, contrary to JohnL and LuckyGuy's thoughts.
I thought @Cyclefree made an interesting post on FPT about whether Labour were building up a problem for themselves by aligning rather too closely with the Muslim voting bloc.
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.
I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.
In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.
Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Well I don't know enough either, but I think it is quite widely agreed that Powell made some very prescient points in an unfortunate way, wherease Abbott makes no prescient points and has an unfortunate way of sounding condescending every time she speaks.
Powell was probably 100 times more intelligent than her. Then again, I'm probably more intelligent than her...
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.
I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.
In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.
Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Now we see it panning out exactly as he predicted
Its very worrying isam and interesting you're the only person to have picked up on my comment. Labour's target market has flipflopped, its like tories voting for Scargill.
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Enoch Powell is widely misquoted and misunderstood. The 'Rivers of blood' speech was an entreaty about the SPEED of immigration - not the fact of it. He was basically saying any host society can only absorb others at a certain rate. That doesn't seem at all wrong or at all racist to me. Today, for example, Farage is saying we can and should accept migrants but not at the rate of 350,000 per year. And, yes, some migrants are more desirable than others so an Australian or Canadian style points system is a sensible idea. Is such a view 'beyond the pale'? Only if you are Diane Abbot.
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Well I don't know enough either, but I think it is quite widely agreed that Powell made some very prescient points in an unfortunate way, wherease Abbott makes no prescient points and has an unfortunate way of sounding condescending every time she speaks.
Powell was probably 100 times more intelligent than her. Then again, I'm probably more intelligent than her...
Interesting but I'm not sure why you wanted to compare prejudice.
Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.
Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.
Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.
Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.
The date of the vote was clearly picked for politics, but Cameron wanted to bomb in Syria long before Corbyn became leader,mi doubt it's a factor in what he wants to do, only instead how he does it.
Cameron did want to bomb the other side then though!
Increasingly the bombing debate seems to be about bashing political opponents in this country rather than bashing IS.
Worthy of note is that Farage has been more than a little ambivalent about bombing too.
OT. Security in France is getting quite tight. I arrived in Marseilles on Saturday and have been stopped three times so far whie driving.One near Marseilles twice around Nice. All the department stores and shopping precincts are checking bags at the entrance.
I wonder whether this is the shape of things to come. I can't see at which point the authorities will decide that these new stop and searches are no longer necessary. It all seems good natured but there's definitely a jumpiness here and this isn't Paris
Mr. Dair, waiting for a new dentist myself. Registered with a practice and have been seen by them regularly for years, but seems they're a dentist short. If I haven't heard back from them soon I'll wander up and see how things stand (not too worried, but there's certainly the demand for them here).
When I read of the problems in the NHS, my first reaction is generally that it is media hype and simply not true because the press make similar claims to attack the SNP in Scotland.
But perhaps it is and NHS England is simply falling apart.
What I can be sure about is that seeing a GP, getting a Dentist, being treated in a timely fashion are just not issues in NHS Scotland. And all while keeping costs from rising. Something up here is being done right which is not happening in England.
But shadow ministers didn’t waver. As the day unfolded Corbyn began to become aware his bullying was not having the desired effect. Word started to come back that whips ordered to put pressure on their colleagues were refusing. One MP who was invited to attend a meeting with his local branch of Momentum to “discuss” his position invited them to get stuffed. And crucially, deputy leader Tom Watson informed Corbyn’s office that those of his colleagues who were threatening resignation weren’t bluffing.
At 2pm Labour’s leader entered the shadow cabinet room in the Norman Shaw North building and finally came eyeball to eyeball with his opponents. And, after two hours of chaotic debate, it was Jeremy Corbyn that blinked. There would be a free vote after all.
The significance of Corbyn’s climb-down cannot be overstated. It represented the first major trial of strength between his shadow ministers and himself. And he lost it. In humiliating fashion.
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.
I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.
In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.
Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Now we see it panning out exactly as he predicted
I've read the speech: albeit a long time ago. I remember the things about "the national character" being changed. And about "picanninies".
But I don't remember anything at all about voting blocks. Or - indeed - religion.
Sounds like another clever wheeze to persuade people to go to A&E when they're in pain.
How the hell are you lot all on NHS dentists ?
NHS dentists here are advertising heavily for more patients, I think, again there may be a problem with NHS England that just does not exist in Scotland.
It might be something to do with numbers of people
The estimated populations of the four constituent countries of the UK in mid-2013 are 53.9 million (growth of 0.70%) in England, 5.3 million (growth of 0.27%) in Scotland.....
So that's an extra 400,000 people in England and 20,000 in Scotland....
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Enoch Powell is widely misquoted and misunderstood. The 'Rivers of blood' speech was an entreaty about the SPEED of immigration - not the fact of it. He was basically saying any host society can only absorb others at a certain rate. That doesn't seem at all wrong or at all racist to me. Today, for example, Farage is saying we can and should accept migrants but not at the rate of 350,000 per year. And, yes, some migrants are more desirable than others so an Australian or Canadian style points system is a sensible idea. Is such a view 'beyond the pale'? Only if you are Diane Abbot.
Nigel says that Powell harmed discussion on immigration because just like Godwyn's Law, mentioning him closed down the debate. Mr fenster described him as prescient which I agree with.
Prominent tories on here are now cheering immigration numbers whilst declining to comment if ALL immigration is a good thing.
Sounds like another clever wheeze to persuade people to go to A&E when they're in pain.
How the hell are you lot all on NHS dentists ?
NHS dentists here are advertising heavily for more patients, I think, again there may be a problem with NHS England that just does not exist in Scotland.
It might be something to do with numbers of people
The estimated populations of the four constituent countries of the UK in mid-2013 are 53.9 million (growth of 0.70%) in England, 5.3 million (growth of 0.27%) in Scotland.....
So that's an extra 400,000 people in England and 20,000 in Scotland....
But shadow ministers didn’t waver. As the day unfolded Corbyn began to become aware his bullying was not having the desired effect. Word started to come back that whips ordered to put pressure on their colleagues were refusing. One MP who was invited to attend a meeting with his local branch of Momentum to “discuss” his position invited them to get stuffed. And crucially, deputy leader Tom Watson informed Corbyn’s office that those of his colleagues who were threatening resignation weren’t bluffing.
At 2pm Labour’s leader entered the shadow cabinet room in the Norman Shaw North building and finally came eyeball to eyeball with his opponents. And, after two hours of chaotic debate, it was Jeremy Corbyn that blinked. There would be a free vote after all.
The significance of Corbyn’s climb-down cannot be overstated. It represented the first major trial of strength between his shadow ministers and himself. And he lost it. In humiliating fashion.
MPs are tough and pragmatic old boots. I hope this is the start of the fightback for Lab. Up to just below the OM for Cons point, ofc.
Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.
Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.
Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.
Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.
The date of the vote was clearly picked for politics, but Cameron wanted to bomb in Syria long before Corbyn became leader,mi doubt it's a factor in what he wants to do, only instead how he does it.
Cameron did want to bomb the other side then though!
Increasingly the bombing debate seems to be about bashing political opponents in this country rather than bashing IS.
Worthy of note is that Farage has been more than a little ambivalent about bombing too.
I disagree on your second point. The case on whether bombing IS would good or effective was made very strongly and passionately, right at the start of the debate, not that we're all convinced. Labour's own confused position is keeping the focus on them, not Cameron focusing on them, he doesn't need to repeat why IS are bad. Only the choice of date gphas been provocative.
Sounds like another clever wheeze to persuade people to go to A&E when they're in pain.
How the hell are you lot all on NHS dentists ?
NHS dentists here are advertising heavily for more patients, I think, again there may be a problem with NHS England that just does not exist in Scotland.
It might be something to do with numbers of people
The estimated populations of the four constituent countries of the UK in mid-2013 are 53.9 million (growth of 0.70%) in England, 5.3 million (growth of 0.27%) in Scotland.....
So that's an extra 400,000 people in England and 20,000 in Scotland....
Tory policy seems to be deliberately stirring up trouble in the Shadow Cabinet. I am not at all convinced that is a very good reason to get involved in the Syrian Civil war.
Will bombing make us safer? Probably not.
Will bombing make us less safe? Probably not.
Does anyone anywhere know the way out of the barbarous chaos let loose by the Arab Spring? Probably not, including all the participants.
The date of the vote was clearly picked for politics, but Cameron wanted to bomb in Syria long before Corbyn became leader,mi doubt it's a factor in what he wants to do, only instead how he does it.
Cameron did want to bomb the other side then though!
(snip)
'Other side' implies you are making the mistake of assuming there are only two sides in this mess.
Who are these *prominent Tories* of which you speak? I can think of two Tories who are pretty relaxed about immigration per se, and a great many more like myself who think it's a huge mistake/culture changing stuff that needs to be restricted to the *skilled, employed, essential, integrated* variety.
I think you do your argument more harm than good by ignoring what so many say. I don't know any Tories beyond PB who are happy that the numbers are as large as they are. I'm very disappointed in Cameron here - and generally like him.
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
snip
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Enoch Powell is widely misquoted and misunderstood. The 'Rivers of blood' speech was an entreaty about the SPEED of immigration - not the fact of it. He was basically saying any host society can only absorb others at a certain rate. That doesn't seem at all wrong or at all racist to me. Today, for example, Farage is saying we can and should accept migrants but not at the rate of 350,000 per year. And, yes, some migrants are more desirable than others so an Australian or Canadian style points system is a sensible idea. Is such a view 'beyond the pale'? Only if you are Diane Abbot.
Nigel says that Powell harmed discussion on immigration because just like Godwyn's Law, mentioning him closed down the debate. Mr fenster described him as prescient which I agree with.
Prominent tories on here are now cheering immigration numbers whilst declining to comment if ALL immigration is a good thing.
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Enoch Powell is widely misquoted and misunderstood. The 'Rivers of blood' speech was an entreaty about the SPEED of immigration - not the fact of it. He was basically saying any host society can only absorb others at a certain rate. That doesn't seem at all wrong or at all racist to me. Today, for example, Farage is saying we can and should accept migrants but not at the rate of 350,000 per year. And, yes, some migrants are more desirable than others so an Australian or Canadian style points system is a sensible idea. Is such a view 'beyond the pale'? Only if you are Diane Abbot.
Powell argued that although "many thousands" of immigrants wanted to integrate, he contended that the majority did not, and that some had vested interests in fostering racial and religious differences "with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
Enoch was a very prescient man. For example, he also forecast that - after Nazi Germany had been seen to - the next enemy the British Empire would need to face would be the United States.
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.
In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Now we see it panning out exactly as he predicted
I've read the speech: albeit a long time ago. I remember the things about "the national character" being changed. And about "picanninies".
But I don't remember anything at all about voting blocks. Or - indeed - religion.
Could you give me a link to the full text?
I don't (quite) know it of by heart, but the "piccaninnies" part was a quote from a constituent, not Powell's own words....I don't think he says anything about the national character either if I am honest
Also, I said the motivation behind the speech was Pre partition India, not that he mentioned it. As for religion, he mentions the Sikh bus conductor, one of the first instances of preferential treatment for immigrants based upon religious differences, but not any other
Sounds like another clever wheeze to persuade people to go to A&E when they're in pain.
How the hell are you lot all on NHS dentists ?
NHS dentists here are advertising heavily for more patients, I think, again there may be a problem with NHS England that just does not exist in Scotland.
It might be something to do with numbers of people
The estimated populations of the four constituent countries of the UK in mid-2013 are 53.9 million (growth of 0.70%) in England, 5.3 million (growth of 0.27%) in Scotland.....
So that's an extra 400,000 people in England and 20,000 in Scotland....
This reminds me of the immigration debate.
For people in Scotland to have the same proportionate experience as the people of England, a third of a million people from Asia and Africa would need to be moved en masse into Glasgow and Dundee.
Labour ahead according to all parties' canvass returns. It was be amazing if they lost. But the reality is that the main opposition should get a swing at a by-election. Since GE, swing at all election (locals/by etc) has been 3.5% to Tories from Lab. That's bad for the reds. In Oldham, Lab were 34% ahead of Tories at GE. If it is less than 27% then that is victory for Conservatives. I think the gap will be narrower. And that bodes well for Tories next May in Scotland, London and Wales.
Who are these *prominent Tories* of which you speak? I can think of two Tories who are pretty relaxed about immigration per se, and a great many more like myself who think it's a huge mistake/culture changing stuff that needs to be restricted to the *skilled, employed, essential, integrated* variety.
I think you do your argument more harm than good by ignoring what so many say. I don't know any Tories beyond PB who are happy that the numbers are as large as they are. I'm very disappointed in Cameron here - and generally like him.
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
snip
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Enoch Powell is widely misquoted and misunderstood. The 'Rivers of blood' speech was an entreaty about the SPEED of immigration - not the fact of it. He was basically saying any host society can only absorb others at a certain rate. That doesn't seem at all wrong or at all racist to me. Today, for example, Farage is saying we can and should accept migrants but not at the rate of 350,000 per year. And, yes, some migrants are more desirable than others so an Australian or Canadian style points system is a sensible idea. Is such a view 'beyond the pale'? Only if you are Diane Abbot.
Nigel says that Powell harmed discussion on immigration because just like Godwyn's Law, mentioning him closed down the debate. Mr fenster described him as prescient which I agree with.
Prominent tories on here are now cheering immigration numbers whilst declining to comment if ALL immigration is a good thing.
Ask Mr TSE he was celebrating immigration numbers the other day and others whose names I can't remember agreed.
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.
I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.
In the past, Con voters have been notoriously reluctant to vote tactically. That said, in Oldham East next door they were willing to go LD in quite large numbers in 2011 so it is possible. You're right that I've put what's probably quite a cautious figure on it though.
Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Now we see it panning out exactly as he predicted
Its very worrying isam and interesting you're the only person to have picked up on my comment. Labour's target market has flipflopped, its like tories voting for Scargill.
Yesterday on the Daily Politics, Stephen Bush said Labour would probably win on the back of Asian votes, and it really struck me that this was just a matter of fact thing to say in modern Britain
On topic, the most astonishing about the PLP meetings and the Shadow Cabinet meetings, is how much live reports we're getting.
The Shadow Cabinet and the PLP are leaking like a sieve.
To be fair, no one was really interested in the PLP meetings before.
Now, they're like a mini-series of entertainment every week.
It was the live reports we were getting from the Shadow Cabinet meeting that proves illuminating about what they really think about Jez.
We should be hearing about neither. Discussions behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors. The fact we're hearing about both shows just how ill-disciplined and how poor the morale is on the Labour Parliamentary benches. If I were a Labour party member, I'd be furious with the elected representatives about this.
This is the problem with having a serial rebel as leader.
Same thing happened when IDS was in charge, party discipline breaks down.
Isn't part of what is going on that the anti-Corbynites in the PLP are going over Jez's head to the media just as he is going over their heads to the membership? Both are unsustainable.
Hmm. If Stop The War are marching against Labour, does this mean that the party is officially at war with itself?
On the fat cards: I think they're a reprehensible, obnoxious thing. But I can't see what law they've broken, unless an individual is being repeatedly, specifically targeted (stalking). Would it be illegal to call someone fat in public?
'the next enemy the British Empire would need to face would be the United States.'
Well that didn't happen because the war itself liquidated British power, and the US carefully tailored its assistance to us during and after the war to speed that process up (including insisting on the UK selling off its massive financial assets in the US itself).
I think Powell was right that the US wanted to see the British Empire dismantled - for commercial as well as strategic reasons. But that outcome more or less fell into their laps, and the US became top dog as a result with all other challengers defeated or exhausted.
I guess cometh the hour cometh the man and if a vacency turns up Hillary Benn's got to be a shoo-in. . Where did it come from? He used to be so flappy and verbose.
Maybe Corbyn was a necessary interregnum while Benn's found himself a charisma.
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.
I
Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Now we see it panning out exactly as he predicted
Its very worrying isam and interesting you're the only person to have picked up on my comment. Labour's target market has flipflopped, its like tories voting for Scargill.
Yesterday on the Daily Politics, Stephen Bush said Labour would probably win on the back of Asian votes, and it really struck me that this was just a matter of fact thing to say in modern Britain
Births to non-UK born mothers were c.27% in 2013 and 2014, and there is no serious prospect of net immigration reducing below a quarter of a million each year in the foreseeable future.
That means the UK will continue to become more and more diverse (it wouldn't surprise me if minorities were 35-40% of the population by 2050) which means identity politics is likely to become even more and more prevalent as time goes on, with ever greater political polarisation around it, unless all these groups can be successfully integrated.
There has been rather a mixed track record so far.
Sounds like another clever wheeze to persuade people to go to A&E when they're in pain.
How the hell are you lot all on NHS dentists ?
NHS dentists here are advertising heavily for more patients, I think, again there may be a problem with NHS England that just does not exist in Scotland.
It might be something to do with numbers of people
The estimated populations of the four constituent countries of the UK in mid-2013 are 53.9 million (growth of 0.70%) in England, 5.3 million (growth of 0.27%) in Scotland.....
So that's an extra 400,000 people in England and 20,000 in Scotland....
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.
I think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions because they're clearly in the game to win it; the Tories aren't. There's therefore a much bigger incentive for UKIP supporters / anti-establishment voters to turn out for them than there is for Con-backers. Also, I think that there were probably quite a lot of people who backed Con and Lab in May on the basis that it was an important government-making decision (even though in Oldham West it wasn't really), whereas at a by-election it's clearly not.
snip
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Now we see it panning out exactly as he predicted
Its very worrying isam and interesting you're the only person to have picked up on my comment. Labour's target market has flipflopped, its like tories voting for Scargill.
Yesterday on the Daily Politics, Stephen Bush said Labour would probably win on the back of Asian votes, and it really struck me that this was just a matter of fact thing to say in modern Britain
It may be "matter of fact" - but is it true? Telegraph, for example, after the GE:
I wouldn't worry about the minutiae of the odds from a prediction PoV (Obviously bettingwise they are critical).
Spoting Index was the best way to back Labour, buying at 20.5 which effectively gave just under 1.43 on Labour, so long as you think they'll finish no worse than 2nd. They are now at 21.5 which is 1.30
Who are these *prominent Tories* of which you speak? I can think of two Tories who are pretty relaxed about immigration per se, and a great many more like myself who think it's a huge mistake/culture changing stuff that needs to be restricted to the *skilled, employed, essential, integrated* variety.
I think you do your argument more harm than good by ignoring what so many say. I don't know any Tories beyond PB who are happy that the numbers are as large as they are. I'm very disappointed in Cameron here - and generally like him.
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
snip
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Enoch Powell is widely misquoted and misunderstood. The 'Rivers of blood' speech was an entreaty about the SPEED of immigration - not the fact of it. ...
Nigel says that Powell harmed discussion on immigration because just like Godwyn's Law, mentioning him closed down the debate. Mr fenster described him as prescient which I agree with.
Prominent tories on here are now cheering immigration numbers whilst declining to comment if ALL immigration is a good thing.
Osborne is very "liberal" on immigration. Hard to find any speech or statement from him about cracking down or being determined about reducing immigration. He just says its an "ambition" to reduce immigration levels.
This is the main obstacle inside Govt to reducing immigration. Osborne controls the funding to crack down on it and sets the overall strategy as the COO/CEO for the Govt.
Who are these *prominent Tories* of which you speak? I can think of two Tories who are pretty relaxed about immigration per se, and a great many more like myself who think it's a huge mistake/culture changing stuff that needs to be restricted to the *skilled, employed, essential, integrated* variety.
I think you do your argument more harm than good by ignoring what so many say. I don't know any Tories beyond PB who are happy that the numbers are as large as they are. I'm very disappointed in Cameron here - and generally like him.
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
snip
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Enoch Powell is widely misquoted and misunderstood. The 'Rivers of blood' speech was an entreaty about the SPEED of immigration - not the fact of it. ...
Nigel says that Powell harmed discussion on immigration because just like Godwyn's Law, mentioning him closed down the debate. Mr fenster described him as prescient which I agree with.
Prominent tories on here are now cheering immigration numbers whilst declining to comment if ALL immigration is a good thing.
Osborne is very "liberal" on immigration. Hard to find any speech or statement from him about cracking down or being determined about reducing immigration. He just says its an "ambition" to reduce immigration levels.
This is the main obstacle inside Govt against immigration. Osborne controls the funding to crack down on it and sets the overall strategy as the COO/CEO for the Govt.
Osborne sees GDP rise with the population, his charade will unfold soon enough.
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
Births to non-UK born mothers were c.27% in 2013 and 2014, and there is no serious prospect of net immigration reducing below a quarter of a million each year in the foreseeable future.
That means the UK will continue to become more and more diverse (it wouldn't surprise me if minorities were 35-40% of the population by 2050) which means identity politics is likely to become even more and more prevalent as time goes on, with ever greater political polarisation around it, unless all these groups can be successfully integrated.
There has been rather a mixed track record so far.
Births are most common among Polish mums.
These children will be indistinguishable except by name as they grow up picking up TOWIE, scouse, brum, tyke accents etc. There is little cultural or language issue.
The government's two child benefits policy could subtly engineer a big change in behaviour, and it really is a massive elephant trap that Corbyn style Labour will most likely walk into - arguing for large families to receive limitless benefits. The areas where this most commonly happens are Tower Hamlets, Newham and Birmingham.
To follow up on John's comment, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Lab will lose two-thirds to stay-at-homes while UKIP's all turn out. There'll be much more going on than that. One scenario:
Lab: 23630, less 50% to abstentions, less 10% to UKIP = 9452 UKIP: 8892, less 25% to abstentions, plus 10% of Lab, plus 15% of Con = 10259 Con: 8187, less 30% to abstentions, less 15% to UKIP = 4503
Which having run those through makes me think that UKIP should perhaps be favourites after all.
Why do you think UKIP will lose fewer to abstentions than Con? Perhaps there will be a bigger Con -> UKIP switch, OTOH.
I
Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Now we see it panning out exactly as he predicted
Its very worrying isam and interesting you're the only person to have picked up on my comment. Labour's target market has flipflopped, its like tories voting for Scargill.
Yesterday on the Daily Politics, Stephen Bush said Labour would probably win on the back of Asian votes, and it really struck me that this was just a matter of fact thing to say in modern Britain
Births to non-UK born mothers were c.27% in 2013 and 2014, and there is no serious prospect of net immigration reducing below a quarter of a million each year in the foreseeable future.
That means the UK will continue to become more and more diverse (it wouldn't surprise me if minorities were 35-40% of the population by 2050) which means identity politics is likely to become even more and more prevalent as time goes on, with ever greater political polarisation around it, unless all these groups can be successfully integrated.
There has been rather a mixed track record so far.
Interesting figures, of course the "minority" numbers won't be spread evenly, concentrated almost entirely in large cities.
One Blairite Labour grandee left the PLP meeting tonight saying it was the most optimistic he’d been in ages, such was the ferocity of attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. He described the Party leader’s demeanour throughout this onslaughts from MPs as “crouched.”
Margaret Beckett told the meeting she was outraged by the attempt to call en emergency NEC meeting this morning to breath down the neck of the shadow cabinet.
She said it was hard to unite the party if there leader’s office was determined to divide it.
Sounds like another clever wheeze to persuade people to go to A&E when they're in pain.
How the hell are you lot all on NHS dentists ?
NHS dentists here are advertising heavily for more patients, I think, again there may be a problem with NHS England that just does not exist in Scotland.
It might be something to do with numbers of people
The estimated populations of the four constituent countries of the UK in mid-2013 are 53.9 million (growth of 0.70%) in England, 5.3 million (growth of 0.27%) in Scotland.....
So that's an extra 400,000 people in England and 20,000 in Scotland....
The data also shows that Scots are most likely to be negative about the economy and the public do not believe that the nation's books will be balanced by 2020 - so, missing the deficit reduction target is already factored in to views about Osborne and voting intention.
Similarly, people believe that key public services will not be stronger so this is also factored in to voting intention.
This is arguably the most important indicator yet that the Tories will win in 2020 irrespective of leader.
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
I think Benn has given himself a chance to be next leader if Corbyn decides to pack it in for some reason. If the PLP divvie up the nominations between himself and Jarvis I think he'd be a big favourite... they'd have to battle to prevent Nandy getting 15 nominations, mind.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
Sounds like another clever wheeze to persuade people to go to A&E when they're in pain.
How the hell are you lot all on NHS dentists ?
NHS dentists here are advertising heavily for more patients, I think, again there may be a problem with NHS England that just does not exist in Scotland.
It might be something to do with numbers of people
The estimated populations of the four constituent countries of the UK in mid-2013 are 53.9 million (growth of 0.70%) in England, 5.3 million (growth of 0.27%) in Scotland.....
So that's an extra 400,000 people in England and 20,000 in Scotland....
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ
The PLP have demonstrated (yet again) that nothing on Earth can make them move against a leader, so why would the Conservative need to do anything to keep him in place?
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
Will the good burgers of Oldham pay any attention to the Syria vote ?
@RichardBurgon: . @DPJHodgesI'm not 'marching on Labour HQ'. I'm contributing to a vital debate on UK bombing vote. Your approach is cynical and truly sad.
...I am just on a march, that is heading for Labour HQ...
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
A more Machiavellian Tory source suggests there will be huge splits in the UKIP parliamentary party were John Bickley to become an MP, he has as much in common, politically, with Douglas Carswell as Ted Heath had with Thatcher.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
Interesting point. They might reason that there's no need to go softly because there's no effective mechanism to remove Corbyn unless he resigns?
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Well I don't know enough either, but I think it is quite widely agreed that Powell made some very prescient points in an unfortunate way, wherease Abbott makes no prescient points and has an unfortunate way of sounding condescending every time she speaks.
Powell was probably 100 times more intelligent than her. Then again, I'm probably more intelligent than her...
Interesting but I'm not sure why you wanted to compare prejudice.
I was being a bit sarcastic sorry, that Abbott had been mentioned as a sighing, eye-rolling MP with a BBC platform. I have no problem with her being given a platform, I'd be much more liberal and un-PC about who gets a platform. But some have questioned Abbott's bigotry towards the white working class. I was - sarcastically - wondering whether Powell would've been allowed the same latitude of a BBC platform, however unpalatable his own views.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
Interesting point. They might reason that there's no need to go softly because there's no effective mechanism to remove Corbyn unless he resigns?
Corbyn's going nowhere until he's remoulded the Party. One day that realisation might sink in with the dimwit Labour MPs.
Burgeon still finding time to lay into Dan Hodges.
Re Mike Gapes - others replied faster than me.
The Oldham Vote - I did wonder why Cameron was so keen to have a vote on approval for bombing on Wednesday, Thursday's headlines might not help Labour to get a vote out in Oldham.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
Cameron & the Cons would never allow low politics to influence such decisions. Apparently.
It is all rather different in the SNP, where there is only one view. Remarkably they all think the same thing about Syria, which is what the leadership tells them to think, which this time means opposing action. Remember, this is how the SNP works. Voicing opposition to the leadership line, or even criticising an SNP minister (which counts as asking them any tricky questions) is banned. Free votes are a virtually alien concept.
Rather than being sanctimonious and mocking the other parties, the brighter SNP MPs should be asking themselves ahead of the Syria debate in the Commons how it is that they have ended up in this position, of not being allowed to use their brains on the great questions of the moment.
Hmm. If Stop The War are marching against Labour, does this mean that the party is officially at war with itself?
On the fat cards: I think they're a reprehensible, obnoxious thing. But I can't see what law they've broken, unless an individual is being repeatedly, specifically targeted (stalking). Would it be illegal to call someone fat in public?
Railway by-laws can be quite arcane, Victorian things. ISTR there is one that is something like: "causing a nuisance to other passengers," which probably carries something like a £50 fine.
From what I remember, it was pretty much a catch-all for all sorts of behaviour, from smoking to swearing at passengers.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34964847
Strong local candidate wins, despite Corbyn
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Change dentist or report him to the ombudsman (personally I think it would be safer to just change dentist but still report him).
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Now we see it panning out exactly as he predicted
Even lefties get this: tim himself made the good, if godwin-esque analogy about WWII. We went to war with Hitler. Did it make us feel more or less safe?
I should say that the figures I quoted are just an early morning, finger-in-the-air scenario but I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable one. The original point was that there's no good reason to assume that the seat is not very much in play, contrary to JohnL and LuckyGuy's thoughts.
Powell was probably 100 times more intelligent than her. Then again, I'm probably more intelligent than her...
Increasingly the bombing debate seems to be about bashing political opponents in this country rather than bashing IS.
Worthy of note is that Farage has been more than a little ambivalent about bombing too.
I wonder whether this is the shape of things to come. I can't see at which point the authorities will decide that these new stop and searches are no longer necessary. It all seems good natured but there's definitely a jumpiness here and this isn't Paris
But perhaps it is and NHS England is simply falling apart.
What I can be sure about is that seeing a GP, getting a Dentist, being treated in a timely fashion are just not issues in NHS Scotland. And all while keeping costs from rising. Something up here is being done right which is not happening in England.
But I don't remember anything at all about voting blocks. Or - indeed - religion.
Could you give me a link to the full text?
So that's an extra 400,000 people in England and 20,000 in Scotland....
Prominent tories on here are now cheering immigration numbers whilst declining to comment if ALL immigration is a good thing.
I think you do your argument more harm than good by ignoring what so many say. I don't know any Tories beyond PB who are happy that the numbers are as large as they are. I'm very disappointed in Cameron here - and generally like him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech
Also, I said the motivation behind the speech was Pre partition India, not that he mentioned it. As for religion, he mentions the Sikh bus conductor, one of the first instances of preferential treatment for immigrants based upon religious differences, but not any other
Here is the speech
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html
and here is a great interview about it, with David Frost
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdr96F5PfMg
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/671617751832788992
For people in Scotland to have the same proportionate experience as the people of England, a third of a million people from Asia and Africa would need to be moved en masse into Glasgow and Dundee.
Stop the War Campaign sending protestors to Labour HQ, which is not Labour MPs' workplace, shows the difficulty of precision targeting.
On the fat cards: I think they're a reprehensible, obnoxious thing. But I can't see what law they've broken, unless an individual is being repeatedly, specifically targeted (stalking). Would it be illegal to call someone fat in public?
Well that didn't happen because the war itself liquidated British power, and the US carefully tailored its assistance to us during and after the war to speed that process up (including insisting on the UK selling off its massive financial assets in the US itself).
I think Powell was right that the US wanted to see the British Empire dismantled - for commercial as well as strategic reasons. But that outcome more or less fell into their laps, and the US became top dog as a result with all other challengers defeated or exhausted.
I sense an anticlimax if they are accurate.
I guess cometh the hour cometh the man and if a vacency turns up Hillary Benn's got to be a shoo-in. . Where did it come from? He used to be so flappy and verbose.
Maybe Corbyn was a necessary interregnum while Benn's found himself a charisma.
That means the UK will continue to become more and more diverse (it wouldn't surprise me if minorities were 35-40% of the population by 2050) which means identity politics is likely to become even more and more prevalent as time goes on, with ever greater political polarisation around it, unless all these groups can be successfully integrated.
There has been rather a mixed track record so far.
England: 6
Scotland: 7.5
https://www.gdc-uk.org/Newsandpublications/factsandfigures/Documents/Facts and Figures from the GDC register October 2015.pdf
The wars they were originally formed to campaign against have now, in fact, all stopped.
Spoting Index was the best way to back Labour, buying at 20.5 which effectively gave just under 1.43 on Labour, so long as you think they'll finish no worse than 2nd. They are now at 21.5 which is 1.30
This is the main obstacle inside Govt to reducing immigration. Osborne controls the funding to crack down on it and sets the overall strategy as the COO/CEO for the Govt.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Corbyn-bencher-Labour-MP-David-Cameron-convinced/story-28270236-detail/story.html#comments
Noticed that Mike Gapes MP was hospitalised yesterday.
Hi @RichardBurgon. Is it true you're going on a Stop The War demo to protest against the Labour party? stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news… …
. @DPJHodges I'm opposing UK bombing, not attacking Labour. It's really sad you make a living & seek fame by parasitically attacking Labour.
Labour asked people why they didn't vote for them. It didn't go well. By @RSylvesterTimes. https://t.co/pR8Qj6ZM0R https://t.co/qmkMKTSjvJ
These children will be indistinguishable except by name as they grow up picking up TOWIE, scouse, brum, tyke accents etc. There is little cultural or language issue.
The government's two child benefits policy could subtly engineer a big change in behaviour, and it really is a massive elephant trap that Corbyn style Labour will most likely walk into - arguing for large families to receive limitless benefits. The areas where this most commonly happens are Tower Hamlets, Newham and Birmingham.
Those places seem to crop up all the time.
I know my current dentist came up from Birmingham a couple years back (he's actually a Saffer).
PM GO it is.
http://order-order.com/2015/05/27/big-feartie-which-snp-mp-gassed-the-chamber/
...I am just on a march, that is heading for Labour HQ...
Oh wait.
Re Mike Gapes - others replied faster than me.
The Oldham Vote - I did wonder why Cameron was so keen to have a vote on approval for bombing on Wednesday, Thursday's headlines might not help Labour to get a vote out in Oldham.
It sounds like someone recorded the whole thing on their phone. There's a lot of verbatim quotes.
By 2020 OA (Scotland) Net
Devolved:
NHS will be stronger: -47 (-64)
Education in State Schools will be Better: -41 (-51)
Crime will be lower: -42 (-49)
Reserved:
Govt finances balanced: -38 (-54)
British economy stronger: +5 (-15)
Low Paid better off: -26 (-40)
Page 5:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ilk1lytlmr/InternalResults_151126_Spending_Review_W.pdf
From what I remember, it was pretty much a catch-all for all sorts of behaviour, from smoking to swearing at passengers.
No idea if it's still in force, though.