Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Zac continuing to trail some Tory voices are questioni

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited April 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Zac continuing to trail some Tory voices are questioning the Crosby-inspired campaign

Pick your metaphor. Canine or feline. The folklore surrounding Tory election guru Lynton Crosby has both “dead cats” and “dog whistles”.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Boris ain't pulling his punches either.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    I don't really think is true. Goldsmith is not a strong enough candidate to win on his own virtues. He had to go negative. It may not work (almost certainly won't) but it was the only chance he had.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Don on Zac, seriously?
  • Thank feck I don't live in London.
  • Don on Zac, seriously?

    As impartial as any BBC employee.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    I wonder if Boris is regretting not standing again.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    The problem with a nice-guy-Zac campaign is that it wouldn't fire up right-leaning voters to turn out. All it would do is make Labour supporters sympathise with the loser while they voted for Sadiq. People who see Zac as "not that bad, considering he's a Tory" aren't actually going to vote for him.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    It reminds one of the unflattering comparison made at the time between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Don on Zac, seriously?

    Have we reached the point that commentary can only be provided on political figures by members of their own party? Or does this restriction only apply to Conservative politicians?
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Don on Zac, seriously?

    As impartial as any BBC employee.
    Are you saying that Labour people shouldn't write about Conservatives? And vice versa presumably?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Sweden's national co-ordinator against extremism has criticized Malmö for not doing enough to stop jihadism, after a 23-year-old from the city was arrested by Belgian police on terror suspicions.
  • Zac will suffer from general non-specific grumpiness aimed at Dave. He's a wealthy trustafarian ecomentaltist - not a good look right at the moment! BoJo won because he was attractive enough to small c conservative outer London to overwhelm the lefty core. Goldsmith simply isn't.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Floater said:

    Driving home from Pagham to Essex last night missed my turn and ended up in Worthing.

    You are the President of the JohnO Fan Club and I claim a return ticket to Hersham.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Don on Zac, seriously?

    Have we reached the point that commentary can only be provided on political figures by members of their own party? Or does this restriction only apply to Conservative politicians?
    No but given that Don was wrong about Crosby being involved in Canada then, that was pointed out then and now he's repeating his mistake now ... he lacks all credibility here.

    The issue is Don and his disingenuity not a generalised principle.
  • What we could do with are some numbers on the London mayor election. Since the 2012 election there have been important changes to the electoral roll. These will reduce the potential voter numbers for Khan far more than Zac. Easily worth a drop of 100,000 in Khan's support, but many of these people think they have a vote and give opinions to pollsters! There is also the virtual abandonment of the jewish vote (I would guess circa 150,000+ in London). True Livingstone lost much of that vote but recent events in Labour will have shifted more jewish votes away.
  • Thank feck I don't live in London.

    You want to live in Sheffield.

    https://twitter.com/bet365/status/719290101516394496
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,046
    More readable than usual, and some interesting points punctuating the partisan narrative.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Zac is not enough of a personality and has been rather laidback. I don't think the campaign has been divisive as is claimed here. It's been a bit "meh" if anything and has not focused ruthlessly enough on Khan's weaknesses, of which there are plenty.

    As I have stated plenty of times before, it is Khan who has raised the issue of racial quotas - and if anything reeks of racial profiling, it is that. It is Khan who has made an issue of his Muslimness by saying that electing him would send a "message". It is Khan who has made an issue about how he will tackle Muslim extremists, even though there is no evidence that he ever done so in the past and some evidence that he has been and continues to be a bit too cosy with some of them. Having raised these issues, he should have been challenged on them but Goldsmith has not done that and I think it a pity because there are questions which Khan should answer.

    Khan is not the worst Labour candidate we could have had but he is not the best. I think he lacks good judgment. But he is energetic and, with luck, won't be a disaster. Whether he will be what London needs I doubt - and that is a pity. Goldsmith would not be a disaster either but he is certainly not the best candidate the Tories could have produced. Personally, I'd have been happy to have had Boris continue. Mayor suits him perfectly. He is overrated as an MP and as a future Leader of the Tories.
  • JohnO are you responsible for managing road maintenance in Cobham? I now know why so many locals drive 'Chelsea tractors' to get around! The A245 is like Paschendaele.
  • What also needs to be borne in mind about London elections is that turnout is going to be low, probably 40%. The voters who are least likely to bother voting are going to be the young (for Khan) and not the 65+ year olds (for Zac)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited April 2016
    Zac is nowhere near as good as Boris.
    Khan is better than Livingstone.
    The political background is broadly the same.

    Last time it was 51.5:48:5

    Looks like it might be a close Labour win.

  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited April 2016
    Zac is beyond dull and a TINO. All the greenie stuff. I've no idea how we've ended up with him as our candidate. No one else seemed interested. I'd have voted Jowell if on the ballot.

    Both candidates lack anything special. We were spoilt with Boris, and were with Cameron before he lost the plot.

    Back to the unremarkable for a while all round in every Party.
    Patrick said:

    Zac will suffer from general non-specific grumpiness aimed at Dave. He's a wealthy trustafarian ecomentaltist - not a good look right at the moment! BoJo won because he was attractive enough to small c conservative outer London to overwhelm the lefty core. Goldsmith simply isn't.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    [Snipped]

    There is also the virtual abandonment of the jewish vote (I would guess circa 150,000+ in London). True Livingstone lost much of that vote but recent events in Labour will have shifted more jewish votes away.

    Possibly - though Khan has tried to reach out to the Jewish community (unlike many in his party) and is to be congratulated on that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited April 2016

    Thank feck I don't live in London.

    You want to live in Sheffield.

    Ezekiel "Kell" Brook is a British professional boxer. As the current IBF welterweight champion, Brook is the highest-ranked welterweight in the world, according to The Ring magazine.

    Welterweight is one of the strongest divisions.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Which candidate is going to stand up for the legal community?
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Which candidate is going to stand up for the legal community?

    George Galloway obviously. Duh.
  • Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    I guess that's why they call them the blues.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    :smiley:
    Wanderer said:

    Which candidate is going to stand up for the legal community?

    George Galloway obviously. Duh.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    Thank feck I don't live in London.

    You want to live in Sheffield.

    Ezekiel "Kell" Brook is a British professional boxer. As the current IBF welterweight champion, Brook is the highest-ranked welterweight in the world, according to The Ring magazine.

    Welterweight is one of the strongest divisions.
    Since Sheffield has opted out of competing in football, I suppose they had to busy themselves with minor sports.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    The Sun published a photo of an English couple reading the Scottish edition that named them. And pixeled the whole image, brilliant.

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Brind - "The Crosby strategy failed in Canada when playing the Islamaphobia card back-fired on the then Premier Stephen Harper."

    Lynton Crosby - "The 'niquab issue' was something I learnt about when I read the media like most people," - "I have watched with bemusement suggestions I was running the campaign or somehow on the campaign team. I wasn't".
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    Why, for heaven's sake? It would be news if a celebrity went to bed at 9 pm on their own, having washed the dishes, put the cat out and said their prayers.

    Honestly, this desire to invade everyone's privacy over everything is beyond tiresome. It's really quite troubling.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Don is indulging in wishful thinking by taking an article by one disgruntled activist seriously. If he looked without rose-tinted spectacles, he'd find Labour activists disgruntled with Sadiq.

    Having said that, Jonathan's post upthread succinctly summarises the position, which is why Sadiq is likely to win. TBH I'm struggling to see why anyone should be particularly concerned about this; he's a decent enough candidate, even if he has made a silly pledge on fares. In particular, he's a far, far more acceptable figure than Livingstone.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pulpstar said:

    Thank feck I don't live in London.

    You want to live in Sheffield.

    Ezekiel "Kell" Brook is a British professional boxer. As the current IBF welterweight champion, Brook is the highest-ranked welterweight in the world, according to The Ring magazine.

    Welterweight is one of the strongest divisions.
    Since Sheffield has opted out of competing in football, I suppose they had to busy themselves with minor sports.
    Jamie Vardy is from Sheffield.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited April 2016
    Miss Plato, Farron there, with a pithy definition of the term 'pining for attention' :p

    Edited extra bit: That said, it probably would've been a better line if someone who didn't keep banging on about his own books had written it...
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    That poll.....Muslims overwhelmingly against gay men and women being allowed to teach and believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

    I wonder what Corbyn thinks.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited April 2016
    1 Zac will lose because he's the weaker candidate
    2 The Tories need a very strong candidate to overcome London's inherent Labour skew
    3 Good to see our friends on the left still respect Sir Lynton - do they respect Lord Livermore?
    4 Also good to see our friends on the left writing off Sir Lynton as a failing has been...
    5 If Zac hadn't done leaflets targeting specific ethnic groups he'd be accused of ignoring them.
    6 The main focus should be going after 'Jeremy Corbyn's candidate Sadiq Khan' - which it appears the leaflet does.....
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    The Lib Dem Press team joined in, they said it was actually 1999.

    Miss Plato, Farron there, with a pithy definition of the term 'pining for attention' :p

    Edited extra bit: That said, it probably would've been a better line if someone who didn't keep banging on about his own books had written it...

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    What we could do with are some numbers on the London mayor election. Since the 2012 election there have been important changes to the electoral roll. These will reduce the potential voter numbers for Khan far more than Zac. Easily worth a drop of 100,000 in Khan's support, but many of these people think they have a vote and give opinions to pollsters! There is also the virtual abandonment of the jewish vote (I would guess circa 150,000+ in London). True Livingstone lost much of that vote but recent events in Labour will have shifted more jewish votes away.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/elections/electoralregistration/bulletins/electoralstatisticsforuk/2015

    Suggests London lost 2.11% of voters in 2013-14 and 1.24% the following year.

    Boris v Ken was almost exactly 2m voter, so what would be 67,000 voters lost if that was it, or more like double that if the average was extrapolated over the electoral period.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Pulpstar said:

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    I guess that's why they call them the blues.
    Bravo.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited April 2016
    O/T If you are still holding on to betting slips about the Irish GE, don't give up hope! There's a faint possibility that they might get round to forming a government eventually, probably an FG minority since that's pretty much the only option available:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0411/780901-irish-politics-monday/
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Both main candidates are running incredibly unambitious campaigns. In the case of Zac Goldsmith that's a clear mistake, given the inbuilt Labour advantage in votes. I can't see value in the betting and I expect Sadiq Khan to win comfortably, as I have done for a long time.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    Patrick said:

    JohnO are you responsible for managing road maintenance in Cobham? I now know why so many locals drive 'Chelsea tractors' to get around! The A245 is like Paschendaele.

    Entirely. I'll be in my high viz yellow number disappearing majestically into pothole 54. Only cos I love Cobham.

    Er, no, it's Surrey County Council. Get in touch with Mary Lewis. She is VERY good.
  • I wonder if Boris is regretting not standing again.

    Nope. He could be PM within the next six months
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I've just looked at the BackZac press team Twitter account, it's got less than 2000 followers. It's tweeted less than 1300x

    No wonder I've barely noticed despite following it for weeks.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2016
    Cyclefree said:

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    Why, for heaven's sake? It would be news if a celebrity went to bed at 9 pm on their own, having washed the dishes, put the cat out and said their prayers.

    Honestly, this desire to invade everyone's privacy over everything is beyond tiresome. It's really quite troubling.

    People only care because they were daft enough to take out an injunction. Without it they would have got a page on the gossip section in a newspaper that not that many people read, and would have been forgotten about 10 minutes later. Now the Streisand Effect kicks in, and everyone wants to know who it is, and why they were so grand as to feel they needed protecting by an injunction.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    I wonder if Boris is regretting not standing again.

    Nope. He could be PM within the next six months
    Where of? .. :smile:
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Final figures for candidates for the May elections including 51 by elections are
    Lab 2673
    Con 2663
    LDem 1801
    Green 1521
    UKIP 1427
    TUSC 308
    Others 525

    Note 1 Labour in Halton and 1 Conservative in a by election in Rutland elected unopposed .
    Wolverhampton Tettenhall Regis ward has 2 Conservative candidates for 1 seat !!!!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    JackW said:

    I wonder if Boris is regretting not standing again.

    Nope. He could be PM within the next six months
    Where of? .. :smile:
    Perhaps it was a mistake renouncing his US citizenship..
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JohnO said:

    Patrick said:

    JohnO are you responsible for managing road maintenance in Cobham? I now know why so many locals drive 'Chelsea tractors' to get around! The A245 is like Paschendaele.

    Entirely. I'll be in my high viz yellow number disappearing majestically into pothole 54. Only cos I love Cobham.
    Careful someone might mistake you for the Chancellor ;)

  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    OT.I am currently re-reading The Art of Legging. and discovered the term "plum" is used for bets of £100,000 just as £500 is a "monkey" and a "pony" is £25.Is it still in use?
  • Wanderer said:

    Don on Zac, seriously?

    As impartial as any BBC employee.
    Are you saying that Labour people shouldn't write about Conservatives? And vice versa presumably?
    Just being ironic. We have lots of anti-Conservatives writing items on here. If only the anti-Conservatives could write in the balanced way that Mr Herdson and Mr Fear write.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    edited April 2016
    Indigo said:

    JohnO said:

    Patrick said:

    JohnO are you responsible for managing road maintenance in Cobham? I now know why so many locals drive 'Chelsea tractors' to get around! The A245 is like Paschendaele.

    Entirely. I'll be in my high viz yellow number disappearing majestically into pothole 54. Only cos I love Cobham.
    Careful someone might mistake you for the Chancellor ;)

    Not so. He's only near perfect, whereas I....
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Well indeed.

    Wanderer said:

    Don on Zac, seriously?

    As impartial as any BBC employee.
    Are you saying that Labour people shouldn't write about Conservatives? And vice versa presumably?
    Just being ironic. We have lots of anti-Conservatives writing items on here. If only the anti-Conservatives could write in the balanced way that Mr Herdson and Mr Fear write.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    chestnut said:

    That poll.....Muslims overwhelmingly against gay men and women being allowed to teach and believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

    I wonder what Corbyn thinks.

    He needs to consult his friends at Finsbury Park Mosque first....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2016
    When Trinity Mirror tried to raise funds by issuing new shares to investors, it set up TM Finance (Jersey) Ltd, a “special purpose vehicle” to collect the proceeds offshore. Trinity Mirror’s annual report discloses the existence of “The Trinity Mirror Employee Benefit Trust”, a pension scheme whose beneficiaries could well include Mirror employees like chief offshore critic Kevin Maguire.

    Then there is the Trinity International Restricted Share Plan, administered by Barclays Wealth Trustees (Guernsey) Ltd, another offshore trustee.

    http://order-order.com/2016/04/11/look-in-the-mirror-millions-held-offshore/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    In a complete surprise to absolutely no one, the Mirror holds money offshore:

    http://order-order.com/2016/04/11/look-in-the-mirror-millions-held-offshore/

    Wouldn't want to get left behind by the Guardian, would it?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Indigo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    Why, for heaven's sake? It would be news if a celebrity went to bed at 9 pm on their own, having washed the dishes, put the cat out and said their prayers.

    Honestly, this desire to invade everyone's privacy over everything is beyond tiresome. It's really quite troubling.

    People only care because they were daft enough to take out an injunction. Without it they would have got a page on the gossip section in a newspaper that not that many people read, and would have been forgotten about 10 minutes later. Now the Streisand Effect kicks in, and everyone wants to know who it is, and why they were so grand as to feel they needed protecting by an injunction.
    There are only two ways of keeping a secret: one is never to tell anyone or even hint at whatever it is you want to keep private. Not hard. Save that people who have secrets are usually quite keen to let someone know that they have a secret, which is where the trouble starts. If they just shut up there would not be a problem. People are incapable these days - seemingly - of shutting up, not aided by Twitter and its like on the one hand and a ludicrous desire for transparency, on the other.

    And the second, counter-intuitively, is to tell someone but in such a way that they assume it's a huge joke e.g. announcing to the office that you're having a passionate affair with the office cleaner. Everyone assumes that it can't possibly be true and dismisses it, when in reality...... etc.

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Donald, Donald, Donald.

    You might want to take a closer look at the Labour party

    "They refer to a strategy based on playing the man not the ball; issuing innuendos and smears rather than fighting on the issues" Ring any bells? It really should unless you don't care what Labour did and do.

    " intrusive, patronising and divisive tactics”" - mhhh - I suggest you could look again at your own party.

    While you are at it can you can get Labour to sort out it's problem with anti semites - that might be a bit of a task though.

  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Both main candidates are running incredibly unambitious campaigns. In the case of Zac Goldsmith that's a clear mistake, given the inbuilt Labour advantage in votes. I can't see value in the betting and I expect Sadiq Khan to win comfortably, as I have done for a long time.

    Yes, he's going to win but it's no fun backing him at such short odds.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Wanderer said:

    Both main candidates are running incredibly unambitious campaigns. In the case of Zac Goldsmith that's a clear mistake, given the inbuilt Labour advantage in votes. I can't see value in the betting and I expect Sadiq Khan to win comfortably, as I have done for a long time.

    Yes, he's going to win but it's no fun backing him at such short odds.
    To be fair to Alastair, he was recommending backing Sadiq at longer odds than now. I guess now the odds are fair, Sadiq's dominant positon is emphasised.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    chestnut said:

    That poll.....Muslims overwhelmingly against gay men and women being allowed to teach and believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

    I wonder what Corbyn thinks.

    The integration of Britain's Muslims will probably be the hardest task we've ever faced.

    It will require the abandonment of the milk-and-water multiculturalism still so beloved of many, and the adoption of a far more muscular approach to integration.

    – TREVOR PHILLIPS, FORMER EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CHAIRMAN


    http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-11/more-than-half-of-muslims-in-britain-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-poll-finds/
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Cyclefree said:

    Indigo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    Why, for heaven's sake? It would be news if a celebrity went to bed at 9 pm on their own, having washed the dishes, put the cat out and said their prayers.

    Honestly, this desire to invade everyone's privacy over everything is beyond tiresome. It's really quite troubling.

    People only care because they were daft enough to take out an injunction. Without it they would have got a page on the gossip section in a newspaper that not that many people read, and would have been forgotten about 10 minutes later. Now the Streisand Effect kicks in, and everyone wants to know who it is, and why they were so grand as to feel they needed protecting by an injunction.
    There are only two ways of keeping a secret: one is never to tell anyone or even hint at whatever it is you want to keep private. Not hard. Save that people who have secrets are usually quite keen to let someone know that they have a secret, which is where the trouble starts. If they just shut up there would not be a problem. People are incapable these days - seemingly - of shutting up, not aided by Twitter and its like on the one hand and a ludicrous desire for transparency, on the other.
    ""He that would keep a secret must keep it secret that he hath a secret to keep"
    - Humphrey Appleby (and possibly Francis Bacon)
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Pulpstar said:

    Wanderer said:

    Both main candidates are running incredibly unambitious campaigns. In the case of Zac Goldsmith that's a clear mistake, given the inbuilt Labour advantage in votes. I can't see value in the betting and I expect Sadiq Khan to win comfortably, as I have done for a long time.

    Yes, he's going to win but it's no fun backing him at such short odds.
    To be fair to Alastair, he was recommending backing Sadiq at longer odds than now. I guess now the odds are fair, Sadiq's dominant positon is emphasised.
    As I understand it everyone on the planet except me is on Sadiq at 33-1. I will stick my neck out and say that is value.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Wanderer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Wanderer said:

    Both main candidates are running incredibly unambitious campaigns. In the case of Zac Goldsmith that's a clear mistake, given the inbuilt Labour advantage in votes. I can't see value in the betting and I expect Sadiq Khan to win comfortably, as I have done for a long time.

    Yes, he's going to win but it's no fun backing him at such short odds.
    To be fair to Alastair, he was recommending backing Sadiq at longer odds than now. I guess now the odds are fair, Sadiq's dominant positon is emphasised.
    As I understand it everyone on the planet except me is on Sadiq at 33-1. I will stick my neck out and say that is value.
    I'm not on Sadiq at 33-1 either :(
  • Pulpstar said:

    Wanderer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Wanderer said:

    Both main candidates are running incredibly unambitious campaigns. In the case of Zac Goldsmith that's a clear mistake, given the inbuilt Labour advantage in votes. I can't see value in the betting and I expect Sadiq Khan to win comfortably, as I have done for a long time.

    Yes, he's going to win but it's no fun backing him at such short odds.
    To be fair to Alastair, he was recommending backing Sadiq at longer odds than now. I guess now the odds are fair, Sadiq's dominant positon is emphasised.
    As I understand it everyone on the planet except me is on Sadiq at 33-1. I will stick my neck out and say that is value.
    I'm not on Sadiq at 33-1 either :(
    I'm on Sadiq at 33/1 and Goldsmith at 22/1

    /Endeth smug bastard mode/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited April 2016

    Pulpstar said:

    Wanderer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Wanderer said:

    Both main candidates are running incredibly unambitious campaigns. In the case of Zac Goldsmith that's a clear mistake, given the inbuilt Labour advantage in votes. I can't see value in the betting and I expect Sadiq Khan to win comfortably, as I have done for a long time.

    Yes, he's going to win but it's no fun backing him at such short odds.
    To be fair to Alastair, he was recommending backing Sadiq at longer odds than now. I guess now the odds are fair, Sadiq's dominant positon is emphasised.
    As I understand it everyone on the planet except me is on Sadiq at 33-1. I will stick my neck out and say that is value.
    I'm not on Sadiq at 33-1 either :(
    I'm on Sadiq at 33/1 and Goldsmith at 22/1

    /Endeth smug bastard mode/
    I got on Zac at 50s ;p - now Winston Mckenzie is out the running I feel alot more assured about using that theoretical profit to back Khan with :D

    #Slyaftertime
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Polruan said:

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
    Perhaps its because evangelical Christians and some sections of the jewish community do not spawn people who murder hundreds of innocents?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    chestnut said:

    That poll.....Muslims overwhelmingly against gay men and women being allowed to teach and believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

    I wonder what Corbyn thinks.

    The integration of Britain's Muslims will probably be the hardest task we've ever faced.

    It will require the abandonment of the milk-and-water multiculturalism still so beloved of many, and the adoption of a far more muscular approach to integration.

    – TREVOR PHILLIPS, FORMER EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CHAIRMAN


    http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-11/more-than-half-of-muslims-in-britain-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-poll-finds/
    More worrying than these figures is the apparent widespread belief that religious law should trump secular law. Such a view is simply incompatible with democracy. No amount of handwringing statements saying that most Muslims simply want to leave peaceably here (however true) gets over this very fundamental problem.

    I'm not sure how easy integration will be even if we had the will. Even more concerning I don't think enough people do have the will. Given that, we are simply storing up more and more problems for ourselves.

    The full article is well worth reading.

  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536

    chestnut said:

    That poll.....Muslims overwhelmingly against gay men and women being allowed to teach and believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

    I wonder what Corbyn thinks.

    The integration of Britain's Muslims will probably be the hardest task we've ever faced.

    It will require the abandonment of the milk-and-water multiculturalism still so beloved of many, and the adoption of a far more muscular approach to integration.

    – TREVOR PHILLIPS, FORMER EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CHAIRMAN


    http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-11/more-than-half-of-muslims-in-britain-think-homosexuality-should-be-illegal-poll-finds/
    Integration will fail as long as large numbers of people continue to be imported from backward parts of the subcontinent. This has been a key factor in promoting the creation of parallel communities, which it may already be too late to break up.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    Trevor Philips that well known racist....FFS....it doesn't matter who points out there might be some issues, be it Douglas Murray, Trevor Phillips or Maajid Nawaz, somehow they are all racist Islamophobes / not proper Muslims.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    And for vulgarians like me, the intro to Pretty Little Liars 'two can keep a secret, if one of you is dead'.
    Indigo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Indigo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    Why, for heaven's sake? It would be news if a celebrity went to bed at 9 pm on their own, having washed the dishes, put the cat out and said their prayers.

    Honestly, this desire to invade everyone's privacy over everything is beyond tiresome. It's really quite troubling.

    People only care because they were daft enough to take out an injunction. Without it they would have got a page on the gossip section in a newspaper that not that many people read, and would have been forgotten about 10 minutes later. Now the Streisand Effect kicks in, and everyone wants to know who it is, and why they were so grand as to feel they needed protecting by an injunction.
    There are only two ways of keeping a secret: one is never to tell anyone or even hint at whatever it is you want to keep private. Not hard. Save that people who have secrets are usually quite keen to let someone know that they have a secret, which is where the trouble starts. If they just shut up there would not be a problem. People are incapable these days - seemingly - of shutting up, not aided by Twitter and its like on the one hand and a ludicrous desire for transparency, on the other.
    ""He that would keep a secret must keep it secret that he hath a secret to keep"
    - Humphrey Appleby (and possibly Francis Bacon)
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2016
    Polruan said:

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
    I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited April 2016

    And for vulgarians like me, the intro to Pretty Little Liars 'two can keep a secret, if one of you is dead'.

    Indigo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Indigo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    Why, for heaven's sake? It would be news if a celebrity went to bed at 9 pm on their own, having washed the dishes, put the cat out and said their prayers.

    Honestly, this desire to invade everyone's privacy over everything is beyond tiresome. It's really quite troubling.

    People only care because they were daft enough to take out an injunction. Without it they would have got a page on the gossip section in a newspaper that not that many people read, and would have been forgotten about 10 minutes later. Now the Streisand Effect kicks in, and everyone wants to know who it is, and why they were so grand as to feel they needed protecting by an injunction.
    There are only two ways of keeping a secret: one is never to tell anyone or even hint at whatever it is you want to keep private. Not hard. Save that people who have secrets are usually quite keen to let someone know that they have a secret, which is where the trouble starts. If they just shut up there would not be a problem. People are incapable these days - seemingly - of shutting up, not aided by Twitter and its like on the one hand and a ludicrous desire for transparency, on the other.
    ""He that would keep a secret must keep it secret that he hath a secret to keep"
    - Humphrey Appleby (and possibly Francis Bacon)
    That is a variation on Benjamin Franklin:
    "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
  • JonCisBackJonCisBack Posts: 911

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    Anyone who cares already knows surely? (And most people who really don't...)
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Indigo said:

    Polruan said:

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
    I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
    There's a difference between the context and content of a proposition, obviously. So let's say 60pc of Christians want to slaughter kittens, but the proportion for Muslims is 45pc. To state the empirical fact about Muslims in isolation because you want to demonise them (cf Taffys' comment below) could be seen as deliberately misleading and motivated by an intent to denigrate than the statement "Christians more into kitten-killing than Muslims".
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    Zac Goldsmith's tax return is going to be interesting.

    Will he also reveal his assets held overseas eg offshore.

    I seem to recall Boris and other London candidates published their tax returns at a previous election.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    chestnut said:

    That poll.....Muslims overwhelmingly against gay men and women being allowed to teach and believe that homosexuality should be illegal.

    I wonder what Corbyn thinks.

    Corbyn should be thinking "Hmmmmm....I wonder if Khan wants my job?"
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    Anyone who cares already knows surely? (And most people who really don't...)
    The interesting part about this story is of course the absurd nature of the law, that allows this farcical state of affairs to come about. Not the incredibly dull nature of the events underlying the situation.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Indigo said:

    Polruan said:

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
    I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
    I wouldn't even bother trying to analyse this. Some people simply refuse to believe anything other than what they want to be true. "Racist" or "Islamophobia" are just ways of refusing to deal with uncomfortable facts or arguments. There are none so deaf as those that don't want to hear.

    People can use facts selectively to sustain an argument and can do so because they have an agenda. The way to deal with this is to point out the missing facts and show how weak/spurious/inadequate the argument is*. But that would take a bit of work and engagement. So those who cannot be bothered to defeat a poor argument with a better one resort to ad hominem insults to bypass the whole concept of argument and debate. These are the tactics of the babyish, the scared, the inadequates and the bullies - of which there are far too many around in positions of influence.

    * One of the best examples of this was Deborah Lipstadt's demolition of David Irving in a libel trial. It took a lot of time and effort and money but his claim to be an academic historian (albeit one with horrible views) was utterly destroyed as a result.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited April 2016

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    Trevor Philips that well known racist....FFS....it doesn't matter who points out there might be some issues, be it Douglas Murray, Trevor Phillips or Maajid Nawaz, somehow they are all racist Islamophobes / not proper Muslims.
    Twitter can never stand the truth.

    Hillary is miles ahead in the votes over Bernie.
    The Tories won a MAJORITY.
    Trevor Phillips and Maajid Nawaz speak the truth.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    The Waltham Forest Islamic Association: Conspiracy Theories, Antisemitism, and Rejection of the West

    http://hurryupharry.org/2016/04/06/the-waltham-forest-islamic-association-conspiracy-theories-antisemitism-and-rejection-of-the-west/
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Polruan said:

    Indigo said:

    Polruan said:

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
    I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
    There's a difference between the context and content of a proposition, obviously. So let's say 60pc of Christians want to slaughter kittens, but the proportion for Muslims is 45pc. To state the empirical fact about Muslims in isolation because you want to demonise them (cf Taffys' comment below) could be seen as deliberately misleading and motivated by an intent to denigrate than the statement "Christians more into kitten-killing than Muslims".
    What on earth are you going on about?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Ha! I'm pretty disappointed that Sleepy Hollow is limping to cancellation. Some great Civil War quotes and fun stuff spoiled by crap plotting.
    Indigo said:

    And for vulgarians like me, the intro to Pretty Little Liars 'two can keep a secret, if one of you is dead'.

    Indigo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Indigo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Ultimate dead cat if it a Tory MP does it.

    An MP is preparing to name the “celebrity threesome” couple in the House of Commons , the Telegraph can disclose, as a Scottish newspaper published the identities of the mystery couple behind the injunction.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/celebrity-threesome-injunction-mp-plans-to-name-mystery-couple-i/

    Why, for heaven's sake? It would be news if a celebrity went to bed at 9 pm on their own, having washed the dishes, put the cat out and said their prayers.

    Honestly, this desire to invade everyone's privacy over everything is beyond tiresome. It's really quite troubling.

    People only care because they were daft enough to take out an injunction. Without it they would have got a page on the gossip section in a newspaper that not that many people read, and would have been forgotten about 10 minutes later. Now the Streisand Effect kicks in, and everyone wants to know who it is, and why they were so grand as to feel they needed protecting by an injunction.
    There are only two ways of keeping a secret: one is never to tell anyone or even hint at whatever it is you want to keep private. Not hard. Save that people who have secrets are usually quite keen to let someone know that they have a secret, which is where the trouble starts. If they just shut up there would not be a problem. People are incapable these days - seemingly - of shutting up, not aided by Twitter and its like on the one hand and a ludicrous desire for transparency, on the other.
    ""He that would keep a secret must keep it secret that he hath a secret to keep"
    - Humphrey Appleby (and possibly Francis Bacon)
    That is a variation on Benjamin Franklin:
    "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited April 2016

    Zac Goldsmith's tax return is going to be interesting.

    Will he also reveal his assets held overseas eg offshore.

    I seem to recall Boris and other London candidates published their tax returns at a previous election.

    He already released it weeks ago. It was boring. He is rich, he paid shed loads of tax and nothing more than that.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Didn't he publish it a few ago?

    Zac Goldsmith's tax return is going to be interesting.

    Will he also reveal his assets held overseas eg offshore.

    I seem to recall Boris and other London candidates published their tax returns at a previous election.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCNormanS: Still no sign of @jeremycorbyn tax return even tho promised it last Wed. Surely can't be that complicated ? Or maybe lost Chez Corbyn ?

    @MrHarryCole: Zinger in @timesredbox: "With the air of someone still desperately rummaging in a filing cabinet" Corbyn will publish tax return "very soon"
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Still no sign of @jeremycorbyn tax return even tho promised it last Wed. Surely can't be that complicated ? Or maybe lost Chez Corbyn ?

    @MrHarryCole: Zinger in @timesredbox: "With the air of someone still desperately rummaging in a filing cabinet" Corbyn will publish tax return "very soon"

    Probably lost in a pile of past editions of the Morning Star....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263

    Brind - "The Crosby strategy failed in Canada when playing the Islamaphobia card back-fired on the then Premier Stephen Harper."

    Lynton Crosby - "The 'niquab issue' was something I learnt about when I read the media like most people," - "I have watched with bemusement suggestions I was running the campaign or somehow on the campaign team. I wasn't".

    There's some dancing-on-pinheads wording issues here, I think. Read Crosby's denial carefully - he wasn't running the campaign, but he's not denying offering advice:

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/lynton-cosby-bemused-at-reports-of-involvement-in-canadian-elections-20151022-gkfp35.html

    The more fundamental point is that the Canadian Tories tried the anti-Islamist stuff, and it didn't work at all, even in heavily white and non-Islamic Canada.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    He's been public paid PAYE his entire life, how complicated can it be?
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Still no sign of @jeremycorbyn tax return even tho promised it last Wed. Surely can't be that complicated ? Or maybe lost Chez Corbyn ?

    @MrHarryCole: Zinger in @timesredbox: "With the air of someone still desperately rummaging in a filing cabinet" Corbyn will publish tax return "very soon"

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Polruan said:

    Indigo said:

    Polruan said:

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
    I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
    There's a difference between the context and content of a proposition, obviously. So let's say 60pc of Christians want to slaughter kittens, but the proportion for Muslims is 45pc. To state the empirical fact about Muslims in isolation because you want to demonise them (cf Taffys' comment below) could be seen as deliberately misleading and motivated by an intent to denigrate than the statement "Christians more into kitten-killing than Muslims".
    Of course, but a survey which sets out the explore the views of one section of the population in contrast to the general population, and publishes a set of figures which show in which way those views differ and in which they are the same might be controversial, but is hardly "racist". It should be no more of an issue that comparing the views about offshore financial vehicles of Tory and Labour voters.

    Leaving aside the minor detail is how credible is it that Trevor Phillips, until reasonably recently the Chair of the Campaign for Racial Equality is a racist ?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506

    Zac Goldsmith's tax return is going to be interesting.

    Will he also reveal his assets held overseas eg offshore.

    I seem to recall Boris and other London candidates published their tax returns at a previous election.

    2012 press re London candidate tax returns

    Boris Johnson earned just short of £900,000 from his freelance work on top of his six-figure mayoral salary in the first three years at City Hall, figures published by the Conservative mayor revealed yesterday, bringing his total earnings for the period to close to £1.3m.

    His freelance earnings were £363,000 the year before he became mayor, when he was still an MP with a £55,000 salary. His full earnings over the past four years are just under £1.7m. The scale of Johnson's earnings will fuel claims by his rival Ken Livingstone that the Conservative candidate stands to significantly benefit from chancellor George Osborne's decision to scrap the 50p top rate of tax – a move that Johnson strongly lobbied for.

    The release of the earnings data raises the possibility of demands on future MPs to reveal their tax arrangements, and could set a precedent at the next general election for a more open, US-style contest.

    The figures were published after Johnson made a public commitment during a mayoral debate on BBC2's Newsnight on Wednesday in an attempt to settle a row with Livingstone over their respective tax arrangements in an increasingly bitter contest ahead of elections next month. Johnson called Livingstone a "fucking liar" in a lift the day before.

    But figures eventually released by Livingstone – after an initial refusal to do so – showed that over four years the Labour mayoral candidate paid himself dividends worth £125,555 from Silveta Ltd, the company he owns with his wife, on which he paid just £23,730 in corporation tax – which at 20% is significantly lower than the income tax he would have paid.

    The figures, verified by an accountant, show Livingstone took £342,041 over the period from a combined income for employment, "interest", company dividends, and his pension. Total tax paid over the period was £113,861, comprising £90,131 in income tax between 2007-2008 and 2010/2011 and the £23,730 in corporation tax . However, the figures do not show the true scale of his earnings since these were channelled through the company.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Cyclefree said:

    Indigo said:

    Polruan said:

    Mr. Wanderer, I'm not on that either.

    Miss Vance, Twitter appears awash with people shrieking outrage at Philips and his 'Islamophobia'.

    On the face of it, it doesn't seem especially islamophobic, though you do wonder why relatively few similar concerns are raised about the integration of evangelical Christians and some sections of the Jewish community
    I am fascinated by the idea that empirical evidence measured at source can be "racist". It is what it is, the expressed views of the sample group with no value judgement attached. In the same way as it is supposedly "sexist" to point out objective (often biologically determined) differences between men and women. Can facts be racist/sexist ? Or only the way they are used and abused to imply non-empirical attributes. It's a funny old world.
    I wouldn't even bother trying to analyse this. Some people simply refuse to believe anything other than what they want to be true. "Racist" or "Islamophobia" are just ways of refusing to deal with uncomfortable facts or arguments. There are none so deaf as those that don't want to hear.

    People can use facts selectively to sustain an argument and can do so because they have an agenda. The way to deal with this is to point out the missing facts and show how weak/spurious/inadequate the argument is*. But that would take a bit of work and engagement. So those who cannot be bothered to defeat a poor argument with a better one resort to ad hominem insults to bypass the whole concept of argument and debate. These are the tactics of the babyish, the scared, the inadequates and the bullies - of which there are far too many around in positions of influence.

    * One of the best examples of this was Deborah Lipstadt's demolition of David Irving in a libel trial. It took a lot of time and effort and money but his claim to be an academic historian (albeit one with horrible views) was utterly destroyed as a result.

    The people in question start with the default assumption that only white people can be racists or bigots.

This discussion has been closed.