Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As LAB members prepare to vote a reminder of the demographi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As LAB members prepare to vote a reminder of the demographic splits at GE2015
Ipsos MORI
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
(Although Aaron Cook's story is certainly one of the plucky Brit underdog fighting against the system.)
FPT
I think you are misunderstanding where I am coming from, I certainly am not pretending all is well, far from it. I think the fact that it is not terrorism makes it far worse for western society
Both are going to hurt me the same, though I do love my phone and would struggle without it.
Its amazing how the authorities can make some immediate statements about difficult and complex issues with such certainty and others not.
http://www.dw.com/en/turkey-our-goal-is-to-join-the-eu-by-2023/a-19486473
In the 80s there were terrorist attacks from the IRA, and there were fights in London pubs between Irishmen and Englishmen, but not both were terrorism.
Maybe I am not making myself clear, but if there were no ISIS, Al Qaeda etc, there would still be these religious assaults, and they wouldn't be called terrorism. But because there is ISIS, we call them terrorism if you get my drift. We suspect they only occur because of ISIS, but I think they would occur anyway
It's interesting that in the eyes of some the alleged killer of Jo Cox was not a 'lone nutter' but a person motivated by the atmosphere created by the leave campaign.
I actually think the lone wolf attacks that aren't organised by terror groups, the ones that I would call Religious Hatred rather than terrorism could be more worrying than ISIS as we will probably destroy that group. When I said it is "life" rather than "terrorism" I wasn't saying that in a good way, I think its a disaster.
Must be the liquid lunch or something, but can’t make head nor tail of the thread. What does it represent? - TIA.
As I said, the political will to do it doesn't exist and in the short to medium term it would create a lot of animosity and probably increase terrorist attacks.
The table below is the make up the voters in the Labour leadership election last year.
It bugs me that the word has been coopted to mean violence linked to a political or religous motive
http://www.dw.com/en/german-interior-ministers-call-for-partial-burqa-ban/a-19487376
That definition was drafted in the times of PIRA and terrorism linked to Ireland but it probably holds good for the people we now have to contend with. The essence seems to be the motivation, they why not the what.
"Here was the football equivalent of the post-modern classic that begins: “You are about to begin reading Italo Calvino’s new novel, If on a Winter’s Night a Traveller …” The message from Arsène Wenger’s Arsenal was that their followers were about to begin a new season of watching Arsène Wenger’s Arsenal, with everything that has come to mean since they last won the league 12 years ago."
The problem is that - without the promise of an afterlife - what's in it for the atheists, agnostics and Jews?
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/capital-flight-london-economy-brexit-business
Why would he forecast a rosy future outside the EU?
Probably a good indication of why brexit occurred...
Addendum: Why is it that our gdp per cap is a fair chunk lower than Netherlands, Germany, Denmark - even though we have 'London'.
Perhaps the economy will be rebalanced with Brexit, it is my big hope - even though it is a net loss overall.
Rob Peyton
The One-upmanship marathon @ThePoke #HipsterOlympicEvents https://t.co/ED4bwKUQeu
I'd guess that it is because we lack a middle manufacturing sector. We're decent at the lower end and excellent at the top, but do very little in between. People who have better skills than basic manufacturing but are not properly qualified to work on building fighter jets or luxury sports cars have very little to move up to which causes wages to stagnate. Indeed, we import a lot of our semi-manufactured goods from the nations you mention. Its something that needs addressing, and soon IMO.
The line of attack of that argument is pretty clear to me.
And do you really want to give the government the power to choose which religious meetings it considers appropriate?
Paul_Bedfordshire made the point more articulately than me a few days ago: these powers that you give the government when it's your guys in control look scary when it's Jeremy Corbyn in power.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/19/europe/germany-veil-ban/index.html
We are dealing with a new phenomenon where some portion of our Muslim immigrants are becoming less, not more, integrated. There are no glib answers to this issue. I think Mr Bedfordshire and Ms Cyclefree have articulated some good ideas, as you say.
If this narrative about the City is correct, it should be seen as a huge strategic weakness that must be addressed. We have seen what happens with banks that are too big to fail. It's even worse if that applies to an entire sector.
I agree with your interpretation of the general line, but I think it shows how dangerously ill-balanced the UK economy is, despite much talk of 'rebalancing'.
"To be sure, London is set to remain the largest financial centre in EMEA for the foreseeable future. It is currently so dominant that it will presumably take a very long time for any of its regional competitors to surpass it."
I mean, WTF. The City is declining. Possibly. At some time in the future. In a galaxy far, far away.
This may not be terrorism in the conventional sense but for those who are the victims of it it is certainly terror, a sort of low level terror, worrying about being out in public while wearing items denoting their religion or worrying about security at schools or places of worship etc.
I never saw guards outside Jewish schools or places of culture or synagogues when I was growing up in North London. I do now. This is not a development for the better. The virus of anti-Semitism was never eliminated from Europe, even after the end of the war when all could see what such hatred could lead to. It has, I'm afraid, been given rocket boosters by the increase in the Muslim population in Western Europe and our craven refusal to confront and call out what Mehdi Hasan called in 2013 "our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism."
However you cut it, wearing full face veils is an issue. Yes, I know, Balaclavas, motorcycle helmets and grown-ups dressed as a giant Mickey Mouse but the big issue here is a cultural schism on our doorstep where some women are totally cut-off from our mainstream life.
A line has to be drawn and I'd say that line is at fully covering all of your face in public as a matter of religion, which is against the most natural and human way of communicating, and a cultural choice (not a religious one) and in no way incompatible with Islam.
On clothing, I don't see why anyone covering the top of their head (or not) should matter to anyone and it's certainly not something the state should be involved in other than where there are genuine health and safety grounds (e.g. construction sites). Covering the face, on the other hand, is a different matter because as well as frequently being a tool of oppression, it also directly interferes with social interaction and literally places a division that should not exist between an individual and society at large.
Its like wearing a brownshirt. Yes, its just a brown shirt. But it isn't.
Meanwhile, some interesting speculation on the Article 50 trigger date
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-19/u-k-said-to-see-brexit-most-likely-triggered-by-april-next-year
No 10 have denied the story, though.
Unless there are specific reasons to believe otherwise?
After (presumably muslim?) women in Syria burned their face veils when ISIS left, its quite clear that this is an extremist political garment and should be banned in public.
If it's a women's free choice to wear it, and they are always choosing to do so in our society, then that's also an issue.
The truth is that governments can, by petty meddling, move where the bulk of financial work takes place. Euro clearing is one part of that. Stricter requirements on funds who are domiciled in Luxemburg but managed in London is another. Requiring that primary government bond dealers are located inside the area that issues them is another. And, of course, the biggest tickets in financial services - those that come from the privatisation of state assets - will never be outsourced to something outside the bloc.
We'd be very naive if we thought the EU was not going to be protectionist regarding where the bulk of financial markets work ends up.
This is not the end of the City. We will adapt. But Europe is likely to end up with a much more fragmented place; there will be more investment bankers in Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris than previously.
https://archive.org/details/MehdiHasan_201601
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/everyday-medieval-terrors.html
https://twitter.com/EuropeDefence/status/766395824305795072
I concur.
In a nutshell if the managers of UK companies can somehow be incentivised to look longer than their next bonus period, we might actually build a much more successful economy and a happier country.
* I draw the line at "No Irish, no blacks, no dogs", but "No philosophers, no PB commentators" is probably OK.
If one person wore a Nazi uniform on the high street (and i expect his collar would be felt pretty soon anyway just for doing that) it can be shrugged off. If tens of thousands started doing it in cities and towns across Britain we'd probably expect the Government to take some action.
This isn't a black and white issue you can boil down exclusively to individual choice (if, indeed, it is such a choice) numbers, volume and social effects do come into play, and what that says about our society.
Let's face it. They were going to do that anyway. The EU cannot abide the City, whether we are in or out if it.
"However, imagine a world where there’s not only no NHS, there are no antibiotics at all."
I don't have to imagine it Morris. This is the world I was born into and it got on pretty well. Mind you, there were kids without good shoes, or no shoes at all in East London. And for a few sixpences we followed the horses and collected their waste. Medically families were covered by private insurance companies for about a shilling a week. We survived and will survive even if modern civilizations collapse is total.
Well OK if you're going to allow all forms of political dress then fine. But in our current regime some forms of political dress are clearly more equal than others.
That T shirt gives you a criminal record.
Clinton 50 .. Trump 46
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/08/19/UPICVoter-poll-Hillary-Clinton-loses-two-points-to-Donald-Trump/6051471614583/?spt=sec&or=tn
National - NBC
Clinton 50 .. Trump 40
http://www.nbcnews.com/card/poll-clinton-leads-trump-10-points-n633871
BritishMoldovan #1 out the kicking in PJs event.It is no coincidence that the first thing religious bigots do when they get into power is to limit womens' freedoms. Control of clothing is one way of doing that. It's a point which an awful lot of men find hard to understand. I can remember the debates in the 1970s about trying to get it across to the police and others that how a woman was dressed was not some sort of excuse or justification for rape/assault. It was hard work getting people to realise that a woman's clothing should not be used to justify male misbehaviour. The burqa is the reverse of that: an assumption that a woman is somehow - by her dress - responsible for a man's behaviour, that a man is unable to control himself or be expected to behave in a civilised way and that women must be covered up to prevent incontinently lustful men from gazing on the possession of another.