Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s the potential for Labour to get a long term polling bo

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited April 15 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s the potential for Labour to get a long term polling boost because of their anti-semitism issues

Chart from polling conducted by YouGov for the Campaign against Antisemitism

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    edited April 15

    kle4 said:

    welshowl said:



    I wouldn’t stop them if folk want to take part, it’s just I’m not that bothered personally.

    Oh I've not watched it other than a few clips. I think it bugged me because I was watching an old Last Week Tonight the other day, and on certain topics John Oliver does get lazier than on others, and there was this interstitial segment about 'What's the point' of the Commonwealth Games, but all it really seemed to boil down to was 'what's the point of the Commonwealth?', in which case why not just say that. The point of the games is perfectly reasonable - you have a big international club, let's hold a sporting competition - even if I cannot be bothered to watch it.

    While I quite like Last Week Tonight, John Oliver is totally predictable in his views / the shows take on issues and it always remains comfortably inside the soft progressive bubble.

    I like Bill Maher because he isn't afraid to stand up and say to "his own side", this is utter horse shit, look how ridiculous / dangerous / hypocritical it is.
    In my eyes dissing John Oliver is like admitting you like pineapple on pizza.
    I don't do either - he's flawed, but very funny. But the flaws can be serious sometimes.

    He also hates Cameron, describing him once as an example of everything he hates about being English.

    Jon Stewart seemed to be a bit of a fan of Cameron when he brought him up, or at least reasonably well disposed, I bet Oliver really disliked having to do segments no British politics which brought him up
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Wrong to judgement someone by the worst of those who back them?

    Conventional wisdom suggests that Labour will take a long term hit in the polls because of the recent coverage of their anti-semitism issues

    Did it? I think people were lamenting and celebrating respectively that it would not.

    I just hope that the recent coverage is getting all the parties to take a very close look.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,481
    edited April 15
    "Neoconservative", like "neoliberal", is one of those terms that used to accurately describe a particular political position but is now just shorthand for idiots attacking anyone they dislike without thought behind it.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,966
    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,178
    It's not older people Jeremy wants to keep on side,the Muslim vote is more important to Jeremy and his friends.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,481

    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.

    Risking the supremacy of democracies over tyrants because of the cost of a degree is a very stupid thing to do.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,481

    It's not older people Jeremy wants to keep on side,the Muslim vote is more important to Jeremy and his friends.

    It would be interesting to see the religious split.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711

    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.

    Well it is certainly the case that if it is part his appeal, and part the lack of appeal for alternatives that is the issue, and needs addressing more than just being bitter at his rise.

    I don't even disagree with the man about intervening in Syria, but I find him incredibly frustrating in how obsessed he seemingly is with process and unreasonable levels of proof before contemplating shifting his own positions (though in fact he has rolled back from his previous position re Salisbury).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Elliot said:

    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.

    Risking the supremacy of democracies over tyrants because of the cost of a degree is a very stupid thing to do.
    People vote for stupid reasons all the time (I think Nick Palmer has recounted being told by someone they were voting for him because he was taller than the other candidate), it cannot be stopped, only overcome.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416

    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.

    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 331
    I'm pretty sure the Tories assiduous courting of the racist vote means they'll be getting the lion share for some time.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688
    edited April 15
    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,698
    I think I just made a little sick in my mouth

    Labour 2018

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688
    kle4 said:

    Wrong to judgement someone by the worst of those who back them?

    Conventional wisdom suggests that Labour will take a long term hit in the polls because of the recent coverage of their anti-semitism issues

    Did it? I think people were lamenting and celebrating respectively that it would not.

    I just hope that the recent coverage is getting all the parties to take a very close look.

    I was suggesting it might help Corbyn because i thought the British were probably anti-semitic, but his approval ratings definitely dropped, even if the Labour share didn't.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819

    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.

    Have to say that was my perception as well. Have you really been away that long? Did you not get your vote back after the nuclear reactor/tsunami thing? I recall you were back here for a few months at that time.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688
    DavidL said:

    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.

    Have to say that was my perception as well. Have you really been away that long? Did you not get your vote back after the nuclear reactor/tsunami thing? I recall you were back here for a few months at that time.
    Wasn't in Britain that long, I'm not sure what it takes to be sufficiently British again.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,542
    Elliot said:

    "Neoconservative", like "neoliberal", is one of those terms that used to accurately describe a particular political position but is now just shorthand for idiots attacking anyone they dislike without thought behind it.


    It’s like ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’, deployed regularly and outside its actual meaning, but largely shorthand for something the person passionately disagrees with. .
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688

    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.

    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.
    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,542

    DavidL said:

    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.

    Have to say that was my perception as well. Have you really been away that long? Did you not get your vote back after the nuclear reactor/tsunami thing? I recall you were back here for a few months at that time.
    Wasn't in Britain that long, I'm not sure what it takes to be sufficiently British again.
    An address is all you need. If you landed in the U.K. tomorrow morning, and had an address you could go online and register to vote in time for the may elections.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416

    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.

    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.
    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    William_H said:

    I'm pretty sure the Tories assiduous courting of the racist vote means they'll be getting the lion share for some time.

    Oh dear...trolls aren't what they were anymore....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828

    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.

    Agreed. I'd probably answer don't know to many of those statements. I don't know about the money one, but even if some people think it's true, that doesn't necessarily mean they are antisemitic. So long as they aren't breaking the law, I fully support people trying to make money. And I'm even more supportive of people taking responsibility for their own finances and living within their means. If Jews are more likely to do that, good for them.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    It's OK BNP-ers, you don't need to mourn the loss of your party. Labour is here for you now...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,824

    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.

    It's also theoretically possible to answer some of the the questions positively but without being semitic.

    I forget the phrasing, but there was one that was something like that "Jews tend to be good at business" - if you accept that business success is a product of a culture that values (a) education and (b) hard work then 9given than Jewish culture values both of those things highly) then you could draw the conclusion that it is true and a good thing.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688

    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.

    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.
    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.

    [1] This may not apply in certain extreme situations like zombie apocalypses, and possibly currently British housing, which is artificially restricted by some of the world's most retarded planning policies, but it definitely applies to jobs.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    Charles said:

    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.

    It's also theoretically possible to answer some of the the questions positively but without being semitic.

    I forget the phrasing, but there was one that was something like that "Jews tend to be good at business" - if you accept that business success is a product of a culture that values (a) education and (b) hard work then 9given than Jewish culture values both of those things highly) then you could draw the conclusion that it is true and a good thing.
    Was that really a question ?

    And if you answered Yes was that deemed to be anti-semitic ???

    I suppose if you had answered No it might be because you thought Jews were thick or lazy or dishonest.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,828
    “I am just as open to having Jewish friends as I am to having friends from other sections of British society.”

    Strongly agree - 64%
    Tend to agree - 25%
    Tend to disagree - 2%
    Strongly disagree - 1%
    Don't know - 8%

    So when the most explicit question about the subject is asked, the results are clear.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,542

    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.

    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.
    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.

    [1] This may not apply in certain extreme situations like zombie apocalypses, and possibly currently British housing, which is artificially restricted by some of the world's most retarded planning policies, but it definitely applies to jobs.
    The government has spent eight years trying to strip down national planning laws and financially incentivising councils to give permissions.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,819
    Charles said:

    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.

    It's also theoretically possible to answer some of the the questions positively but without being semitic.

    I forget the phrasing, but there was one that was something like that "Jews tend to be good at business" - if you accept that business success is a product of a culture that values (a) education and (b) hard work then 9given than Jewish culture values both of those things highly) then you could draw the conclusion that it is true and a good thing.
    Don't see one quite like that but there is “Jewish people can be trusted just as much as other British people in business” and “British Jewish people chase money more than other British people.”
    I think to disagree with the first or agree with the second is pretty reasonable evidence of anti-Semitism.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416


    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.

    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.

    [1] This may not apply in certain extreme situations like zombie apocalypses, and possibly currently British housing, which is artificially restricted by some of the world's most retarded planning policies, but it definitely applies to jobs.
    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    Now by simple supply and demand increased immigration has allowed downward pressure to be applied to wages and upward pressure to be applied to housing costs. Things which guarantee a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich.

    And I really doubt that young British people will lose out if their opportunities to wash cars in Albania or pick potatoes in Lithuania or clean hotel rooms in Poland or work in an Amazon warehouse in Romania are restricted.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688
    edited April 15
    notme said:


    The government has spent eight years trying to strip down national planning laws and financially incentivising councils to give permissions.

    They're just tinkering around the edges. The problem is that they gave councils the ability to micro-manage the thing in the first place. Once you've created a command economy like that, you don't fix it with more central government sending down demands to produce more tractors.

    At the risk of betraying my disloyalty to Britain, the way it's done in Japan, which works, is:
    1) National control, not local control, since the local council has weird incentives (eg someone who wants to live in your area but doesn't yet isn't a stakeholder) and is highly sensitive to lobbying by people with too much time on their hands
    2) Simple, consistent rules, not development-by-development micro-management
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.

    It's also theoretically possible to answer some of the the questions positively but without being semitic.

    I forget the phrasing, but there was one that was something like that "Jews tend to be good at business" - if you accept that business success is a product of a culture that values (a) education and (b) hard work then 9given than Jewish culture values both of those things highly) then you could draw the conclusion that it is true and a good thing.
    Don't see one quite like that but there is “Jewish people can be trusted just as much as other British people in business” and “British Jewish people chase money more than other British people.”
    I think to disagree with the first or agree with the second is pretty reasonable evidence of anti-Semitism.
    I'm curious as to how many people would have had the real life experience to give an answer to that.

    Outside of North London and a few other small areas the Jewish population is almost non-existent and the 'obvious' Jewish population even more so.

    The general image of a Jewish businessman is probably either Alan Sugar or Philip Green rather than anyone people have experience personally.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 132
    TSE confirming his reputation on PB. And not in a good way.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416

    notme said:


    The government has spent eight years trying to strip down national planning laws and financially incentivising councils to give permissions.

    They're just tinkering around the edges. The problem is that they gave councils the ability to micro-manage the thing in the first place. Once you've created a command economy like that, you don't fix it with more central government sending down demands to produce more tractors.

    At the risk of betraying my disloyalty to Britain, the way it's done in Japan, which works, is:
    1) National control, not local control, since the local council has weird incentives (eg someone who wants to live in your area but doesn't yet isn't a stakeholder) and is highly sensitive to lobbying by people with too much time on their hands
    2) Simple, consistent rules, not development-by-development micro-management
    Are you sure it works ?

    The Japanese property market has had boom and bust periods far more extreme than Britain's.

    Or are things reformed and improved now.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,140
    Tbh, I think everyone has a certain amount of prejudice against people not like them. It doesn't mean everyone is just a different shade of Nick Griffin.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,218

    Catching up from the last thread, but still relevant to this one. Yes, those posters who claim that Corbyn would prevent a real threat to national security are completely correct. But what I felt was missing from the great majority of posts was any sense of the Tories' culpability for his rise.

    Beyond the contemptible £3 Tories for Corbyn - whom I'd accept were a minority - it's the comprehensive shafting of an entire generation over housing, Brexit and tuition fees that has enabled his ascent. So no matter what Corbyn does or says, swathes of young people will not be deterred from voting Labour. For a party that once prided itself on its one-nation credentials that is deeply shaming.

    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.
    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
    Which does rather beg the question: what will be the level of non-UK inward migration post-Brexit? More or less than it is now?

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688

    notme said:


    The government has spent eight years trying to strip down national planning laws and financially incentivising councils to give permissions.

    They're just tinkering around the edges. The problem is that they gave councils the ability to micro-manage the thing in the first place. Once you've created a command economy like that, you don't fix it with more central government sending down demands to produce more tractors.

    At the risk of betraying my disloyalty to Britain, the way it's done in Japan, which works, is:
    1) National control, not local control, since the local council has weird incentives (eg someone who wants to live in your area but doesn't yet isn't a stakeholder) and is highly sensitive to lobbying by people with too much time on their hands
    2) Simple, consistent rules, not development-by-development micro-management
    Are you sure it works ?

    The Japanese property market has had boom and bust periods far more extreme than Britain's.

    Or are things reformed and improved now.
    There was the bubble, but that was nearly 30 years ago. Now we have consistently low rents, including in cities like Tokyo with fast-growing populations, and the amount of space each person has to live in (floor space per person) is also growing. It's not rocket science, you just let people build stuff.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,964
    Labour shouldn’t stop at hating Jews -must be plenty of votes in abusing Americans, Germans, Australians , Canadians and Eskimos.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    Page 15 of the Antisemitism Barometer 2017 (source of this survey):

    Perceived Threats

    Primary perceived threat: X 48%, Far Left 29%, Far Right 18%, Other 5%.

    I wonder if anyone can guess, without looking, what X might be? because as it beats the combined score of Far Left and Far Right, it seems perverse to regard this as being primarily about political alignments.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,348
    edited April 15

    TSE confirming his reputation on PB. And not in a good way.

    I think he must have had a good drink , when he wrote this thread.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,218
    edited April 15
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Page 15 of the Antisemitism Barometer 2017 (source of this survey):

    Perceived Threats

    Primary perceived threat: X 48%, Far Left 29%, Far Right 18%, Other 5%.

    I wonder if anyone can guess, without looking, what X might be? because as it beats the combined score of Far Left and Far Right, it seems perverse to regard this as being primarily about political alignments.

    OK, I give up. What is "X"?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,550
    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Page 15 of the Antisemitism Barometer 2017 (source of this survey):

    Perceived Threats

    Primary perceived threat: X 48%, Far Left 29%, Far Right 18%, Other 5%.

    I wonder if anyone can guess, without looking, what X might be? because as it beats the combined score of Far Left and Far Right, it seems perverse to regard this as being primarily about political alignments.

    OK, I give up. What is "X"?
    Islamism.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,459
    Which anti-semitic statement did older voters endorse?

    TSE - your header is loathsome - the politics of division. You're inventing factions where none exist. You should be ashamed.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108

    TSE confirming his reputation on PB. And not in a good way.

    Another term for a "basic bridge" might be a plank....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711



    There was the bubble, but that was nearly 30 years ago. Now we have consistently low rents, including in cities like Tokyo with fast-growing populations, and the amount of space each person has to live in (floor space per person) is also growing. It's not rocket science, you just let people build stuff.

    I'm only vaguely aware. but the latest plan to get lots of small builds seems to be Permissions in Principle for 1-9 houses - it was described to me that all you need to do is submit a plan of the land in question and how m any houses you want on it, no other info. The idea presumably being that once the principle is established, a major hurdle is cleared, since if you get the planning permission stage with the principle established, it is much harder for lobbying to be successful.

    Seems like a pretty minor thing really.

    Though in fairness the biggest hold up to major developments in areas already allocated round my way is godsdamned bats and newts.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,244
    edited April 15

    In my eyes dissing John Oliver is like admitting you like pineapple on pizza.

    I recently watched "The Good Place" on Netflix.

    Hawaiian Pizza is served, in Hell...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    Scott_P said:

    In my eyes dissing John Oliver is like admitting you like pineapple on pizza.

    I recently watched "The Good Place" on Netflix.

    Hawaiian Pizza is served, in Hell...
    Great show, and not wrong in that case.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,596
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    In my eyes dissing John Oliver is like admitting you like pineapple on pizza.

    I recently watched "The Good Place" on Netflix.

    Hawaiian Pizza is served, in Hell...
    Great show, and not wrong in that case.
    spoliers
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688


    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    I can't remember the name of that fallacy but it's obviously dumb.

    "You'd be healthier if you ate less food."
    "So you'd be healthier if you ate no food at all then"

    That said, if the police and welfare systems didn't fall apart then it would put the economic magimix on puree which probably would be great for jobs for young British people.


    Now by simple supply and demand increased immigration has allowed downward pressure to be applied to wages and upward pressure to be applied to housing costs. Things which guarantee a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich.

    It hasn't caused downward pressure to be applied to wages. There's an argument that it may have done this a little bit for people without skills or education, but even that effect seems to be small if it exists at all. What your "simple supply and demand" mental model is missing is that people can't be directly substituted for each other, and economic activity creates more economic activity, so letting you into a country to do whatever it is you creates employment opportunities for people who interact with you. Economists have looked at this over and over again in all kinds of different places, they keep finding the same thing.


    And I really doubt that young British people will lose out if their opportunities to wash cars in Albania or pick potatoes in Lithuania or clean hotel rooms in Poland or work in an Amazon warehouse in Romania are restricted.

    I don't know if you just have a really weird idea what young people do when they leave Britain or if you haven't ever dealt with an actual immigration bureaucracy, so don't realize what problems you're creating for people who want to live abroad for other reasons than those.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 906


    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.

    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.

    [1] This may not apply in certain extreme situations like zombie apocalypses, and possibly currently British housing, which is artificially restricted by some of the world's most retarded planning policies, but it definitely applies to jobs.
    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    Now by simple supply and demand increased immigration has allowed downward pressure to be applied to wages and upward pressure to be applied to housing costs. Things which guarantee a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich.

    And I really doubt that young British people will lose out if their opportunities to wash cars in Albania or pick potatoes in Lithuania or clean hotel rooms in Poland or work in an Amazon warehouse in Romania are restricted.
    And by your argument it would be to the benefit of young Londoners to ban inward migration from other parts of the UK.

    Or are the rules different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,824

    Charles said:

    This survey seems a bit tricksy. I mean, I don't think I'd endorse any of the statements because they're all weird generalisations about "Jewish people", but in a poll you're pushing people to accept the framing and give an answer.

    For instance, if you identify strongly with Israel, which is a foreign country, doesn't that make you less loyal to Britain? I mean, I live in Japan and Britain thinks that makes me less loyal enough that I shouldn't have a vote. You could think about it for a bit and conclude say that other races in Britain have connections with other countries just as much as Jews do with Israel, but that's not how the framing is nudging you. And the whole thing assumes loyalty to a country is a good thing, when in fact it's a sign that you don't get out enough.

    So I say ignore the whole thing, the premise is agenda-driven bollocks.

    It's also theoretically possible to answer some of the the questions positively but without being semitic.

    I forget the phrasing, but there was one that was something like that "Jews tend to be good at business" - if you accept that business success is a product of a culture that values (a) education and (b) hard work then 9given than Jewish culture values both of those things highly) then you could draw the conclusion that it is true and a good thing.
    Was that really a question ?

    And if you answered Yes was that deemed to be anti-semitic ???

    I suppose if you had answered No it might be because you thought Jews were thick or lazy or dishonest.
    It was something like that - I remember thinking at the time that it was a very broad definition of "anti-semitism".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711


    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.

    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.

    [1] This may not apply in certain extreme situations like zombie apocalypses, and possibly currently British housing, which is artificially restricted by some of the world's most retarded planning policies, but it definitely applies to jobs.
    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    Now by simple supply and demand increased immigration has allowed downward pressure to be applied to wages and upward pressure to be applied to housing costs. Things which guarantee a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich.

    And I really doubt that young British people will lose out if their opportunities to wash cars in Albania or pick potatoes in Lithuania or clean hotel rooms in Poland or work in an Amazon warehouse in Romania are restricted.
    And by your argument it would be to the benefit of young Londoners to ban inward migration from other parts of the UK.

    Or are the rules different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    Surely one the points of nation states is that the rules are different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 2,334

    notme said:


    The government has spent eight years trying to strip down national planning laws and financially incentivising councils to give permissions.

    They're just tinkering around the edges. The problem is that they gave councils the ability to micro-manage the thing in the first place. Once you've created a command economy like that, you don't fix it with more central government sending down demands to produce more tractors.

    At the risk of betraying my disloyalty to Britain, the way it's done in Japan, which works, is:
    1) National control, not local control, since the local council has weird incentives (eg someone who wants to live in your area but doesn't yet isn't a stakeholder) and is highly sensitive to lobbying by people with too much time on their hands
    2) Simple, consistent rules, not development-by-development micro-management
    Are you sure it works ?

    The Japanese property market has had boom and bust periods far more extreme than Britain's.

    Or are things reformed and improved now.
    There was the bubble, but that was nearly 30 years ago. Now we have consistently low rents, including in cities like Tokyo with fast-growing populations, and the amount of space each person has to live in (floor space per person) is also growing. It's not rocket science, you just let people build stuff.
    The joys of a declining population!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,218
    I had a quick read of that thread, thank you. It seems accurate and stated baldly it doesn't seem that bad: namely, that many global problems are caused by the uneven distribution of wealth and power. Fair enough. Where I disagree with him is the conceit that by giving up our wealth and power it makes the situation better instead of worse. This is why I get so annoyed when people say "Oh let's go be a small-medium power and stop pretending to be global": it's decadent... :(
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711


    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    I can't remember the name of that fallacy but it's obviously dumb.

    "You'd be healthier if you ate less food."
    "So you'd be healthier if you ate no food at all then"

    Reductio ad absurdum I assume

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,218
    Ishmael_Z said:

    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Page 15 of the Antisemitism Barometer 2017 (source of this survey):

    Perceived Threats

    Primary perceived threat: X 48%, Far Left 29%, Far Right 18%, Other 5%.

    I wonder if anyone can guess, without looking, what X might be? because as it beats the combined score of Far Left and Far Right, it seems perverse to regard this as being primarily about political alignments.

    OK, I give up. What is "X"?
    Islamism.
    Ah, thank you.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688
    Omnium said:

    Which anti-semitic statement did older voters endorse?

    TSE - your header is loathsome - the politics of division. You're inventing factions where none exist. You should be ashamed.

    As I said up-thread I don't think the premise is right because it's based on a dodgy survey, but some voters are clearly racist and/or anti-semitic, so given the point of the site you shouldn't get cross at TSE for trying to figure out where their votes are going.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,688
    RoyalBlue said:

    notme said:


    The government has spent eight years trying to strip down national planning laws and financially incentivising councils to give permissions.

    They're just tinkering around the edges. The problem is that they gave councils the ability to micro-manage the thing in the first place. Once you've created a command economy like that, you don't fix it with more central government sending down demands to produce more tractors.

    At the risk of betraying my disloyalty to Britain, the way it's done in Japan, which works, is:
    1) National control, not local control, since the local council has weird incentives (eg someone who wants to live in your area but doesn't yet isn't a stakeholder) and is highly sensitive to lobbying by people with too much time on their hands
    2) Simple, consistent rules, not development-by-development micro-management
    Are you sure it works ?

    The Japanese property market has had boom and bust periods far more extreme than Britain's.

    Or are things reformed and improved now.
    There was the bubble, but that was nearly 30 years ago. Now we have consistently low rents, including in cities like Tokyo with fast-growing populations, and the amount of space each person has to live in (floor space per person) is also growing. It's not rocket science, you just let people build stuff.
    The joys of a declining population!
    This is true of Japan in general, but definitely not of Tokyo, which is growing fairly fast.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 906
    kle4 said:


    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.

    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.

    [1] This may not apply in certain extreme situations like zombie apocalypses, and possibly currently British housing, which is artificially restricted by some of the world's most retarded planning policies, but it definitely applies to jobs.
    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    Now by simple supply and demand increased immigration has allowed downward pressure to be applied to wages and upward pressure to be applied to housing costs. Things which guarantee a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich.

    And I really doubt that young British people will lose out if their opportunities to wash cars in Albania or pick potatoes in Lithuania or clean hotel rooms in Poland or work in an Amazon warehouse in Romania are restricted.
    And by your argument it would be to the benefit of young Londoners to ban inward migration from other parts of the UK.

    Or are the rules different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    Surely one the points of nation states is that the rules are different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    Try answering the point.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,867

    kle4 said:



    And by your argument it would be to the benefit of young Londoners to ban inward migration from other parts of the UK.

    Or are the rules different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?

    Surely one the points of nation states is that the rules are different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    Try answering the point.
    I think the answer is yes, the rule are different for foreigners. That's why immigration is not unrestricted.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    tlg86 said:

    “I am just as open to having Jewish friends as I am to having friends from other sections of British society.”

    Strongly agree - 64%
    Tend to agree - 25%
    Tend to disagree - 2%
    Strongly disagree - 1%
    Don't know - 8%

    So when the most explicit question about the subject is asked, the results are clear.

    Clearly not a poll of the Jezzbollah.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    edited April 15

    kle4 said:


    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.

    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.

    [1] This may not apply in certain extreme situations like zombie apocalypses, and possibly currently British housing, which is artificially restricted by some of the world's most retarded planning policies, but it definitely applies to jobs.
    So by that dstricted.
    And by your argument it would be to the benefit of young Londoners to ban inward migration from other parts of the UK.

    Or are the rules different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    Surely one the points of nation states is that the rules are different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    Try answering the point.
    I don't have an issue with migration, thank you, so I don't feel the need to argue it as I haven't been arguing for restricting migration - I was simply curious if you think there is something wrong, in itself, with a nation treating foreigners differently to its own citizens, as that seemed to be implied by your post.

    So since we both, I assume, have no issue with immigration, how about you try answering the point?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    Scott_P said:
    Probably no one home ... both upstairs in the building and with the complainant.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 18,108
    JackW said:

    Scott_P said:
    Probably no one home ... both upstairs in the building and with the complainant.
    "What do you mean officer, am I familiar with the concept of wasting police time?"
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 906
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:


    You're certainly right about housing and tuition fees but how does Brexit shaft the young ?

    The number of young British people working in other EU countries is far smaller than those from other EU countries working in Britain.

    Freedom isn't zero-sum, a British person losing the ability to live in another country without jumping through a bunch of hoops isn't cancelled out by a person from another country having to jump through the same hoops to live in Britain.
    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.
    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.



    So by that dstricted.
    And by your argument it would be to the benefit of young Londoners to ban inward migration from other parts of the UK.

    Or are the rules different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    Surely one the points of nation states is that the rules are different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    Try answering the point.
    I don't have an issue with migration, thank you, so I don't feel the need to argue it as I haven't been arguing for restricting migration - I was simply curious if you think there is something wrong, in itself, with a nation treating foreigners differently to its own citizens, as that seemed to be implied by your post.

    So since we both, I assume, have no issue with immigration, how about you try answering the point?
    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416


    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.

    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.

    [1] This may not apply in certain extreme situations like zombie apocalypses, and possibly currently British housing, which is artificially restricted by some of the world's most retarded planning policies, but it definitely applies to jobs.
    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    Now by simple supply and demand increased immigration has allowed downward pressure to be applied to wages and upward pressure to be applied to housing costs. Things which guarantee a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich.

    And I really doubt that young British people will lose out if their opportunities to wash cars in Albania or pick potatoes in Lithuania or clean hotel rooms in Poland or work in an Amazon warehouse in Romania are restricted.
    And by your argument it would be to the benefit of young Londoners to ban inward migration from other parts of the UK.

    Or are the rules different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    The rules are different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner and that's why the people of 90% of the world aren't allowed unlimited immigration to Britain.

    Do you support or oppose that ?

    And BTW I think London has negative net migration with the rest of Britain ie more people move from London than move to London.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/24/bloated-london-property-prices-fuelling-exodus-from-capital
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    edited April 15



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416


    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    I can't remember the name of that fallacy but it's obviously dumb.

    "You'd be healthier if you ate less food."
    "So you'd be healthier if you ate no food at all then"

    That said, if the police and welfare systems didn't fall apart then it would put the economic magimix on puree which probably would be great for jobs for young British people.

    I'll take that as an acceptence that I'm right.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Good evening, everyone.

    F1: if you missed it earlier, may be worth putting a tiny sum on Grosjean/Magnussen for the win (each way) in Azerbaijan. Odds, with boost, on Ladbrokes were 651/501 when I did it.

    Tiny stakes, mind.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 906
    edited April 15


    But it is.

    Immigrants to Britain provide competition for jobs and housing.

    So any British people who aren't intending to work elsewhere in the EU (and that's a large majority of them I suspect) would be losing a non-relevent benefit but gaining directly from competitors losing the equivalent benefit.

    Like other humans they both consume and create jobs and housing [1]. People's interactions with other people are generally positive-sum rather than negative-sum, which is why they tend to cluster together in towns and cities rather than live out in the country as far away from each other as possible. So no, you are not doing young people a favour by banning other people from interacting with them, and it certainly doesn't make up for the harm you're doing them by taking away their freedom.

    [1] This may not apply in certain extreme situations like zombie apocalypses, and possibly currently British housing, which is artificially restricted by some of the world's most retarded planning policies, but it definitely applies to jobs.
    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    Now by simple supply and demand increased immigration has allowed downward pressure to be applied to wages and upward pressure to be applied to housing costs. Things which guarantee a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich.

    And I really doubt that young British people will lose out if their opportunities to wash cars in Albania or pick potatoes in Lithuania or clean hotel rooms in Poland or work in an Amazon warehouse in Romania are restricted.
    And by your argument it would be to the benefit of young Londoners to ban inward migration from other parts of the UK.

    Or are the rules different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner?
    The rules are different for Jonny and Jane Foreigner and that's why the people of 90% of the world aren't allowed unlimited immigration to Britain.

    Do you support or oppose that ?

    And BTW I think London has negative net migration with the rest of Britain ie more people move from London than move to London.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/24/bloated-london-property-prices-fuelling-exodus-from-capital
    Economically London now extends to most of the SE of the country. HS2 will put Birmingham in Zone 4, in terms of travel time.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    JackW said:

    Scott_P said:
    Probably no one home ... both upstairs in the building and with the complainant.
    "What do you mean officer, am I familiar with the concept of wasting police time?"
    "Thank you for your call to Berwick Police Station.

    1. Press 1 if you are calling after normal working hours.
    2. Press 2 if you are calling at the weekend
    3. Press 3 if you require a police officer to attend within a fortnight
    4. Press 4 if you are being murdered and require a forensic scientist to attend.
    5. Press 5 if you wish to donate to the Chief Constables legal aid fund.
    6. Press 6 if you wish to waste further police time and your own.

    Your call is important to us"
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416


    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...


    Now by simple supply and demand increased immigration has allowed downward pressure to be applied to wages and upward pressure to be applied to housing costs. Things which guarantee a wealth transfer from the young to the old and from the poor to the rich.

    It hasn't caused downward pressure to be applied to wages. There's an argument that it may have done this a little bit for people without skills or education, but even that effect seems to be small if it exists at all. What your "simple supply and demand" mental model is missing is that people can't be directly substituted for each other, and economic activity creates more economic activity, so letting you into a country to do whatever it is you creates employment opportunities for people who interact with you. Economists have looked at this over and over again in all kinds of different places, they keep finding the same thing.

    And gibberish creates more gibberish.

    Or as Stuart Rose told us


  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 906
    kle4 said:



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
    I am in favour of freedom of movement amongst citizens of the EU, since you ask. I realise that is now an extreme position, which saddens me greatly.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711
    kle4 said:



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
    In fact, it seems to be classic 'This person disagreed with me, therefore they must be on the opposite side to me!' thinking. Which is funny, as I didn't even disagree with you, and yet you appear to think I did for some reason.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416


    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    I don't know if you just have a really weird idea what young people do when they leave Britain or if you haven't ever dealt with an actual immigration bureaucracy, so don't realize what problems you're creating for people who want to live abroad for other reasons than those.
    And how many young people leave Britain ?

    Which was my original point.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,711

    kle4 said:



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
    I am in favour of freedom of movement amongst citizens of the EU, since you ask. I realise that is now an extreme position, which saddens me greatly.
    I'm in favour of that myself. Frankly, even though I voted leave for other reasons, I would be happy to keep freedom of movement with the EU now. Notably, even many remainers wanted to restrict that somewha, however.

    I would not be surprised if, in time, we have it with the EU again.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174
    And the tweet of the day award goes to Chris Williamson:



  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416

    kle4 said:



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
    I am in favour of freedom of movement amongst citizens of the EU, since you ask. I realise that is now an extreme position, which saddens me greatly.
    Are you in favour of freedom of movement for the whole world ?

    If not then its merely a discussion about where we draw the line.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 906
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
    I am in favour of freedom of movement amongst citizens of the EU, since you ask. I realise that is now an extreme position, which saddens me greatly.
    I'm in favour of that myself. Frankly, even though I voted leave for other reasons, I would be happy to keep freedom of movement with the EU now. Notably, even many remainers wanted to restrict that somewha, however.

    I would not be surprised if, in time, we have it with the EU again.
    And I cannot understand the argument that FoM is bad for young people’s opportunities.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,178

    kle4 said:



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
    I am in favour of freedom of movement amongst citizens of the EU, since you ask. I realise that is now an extreme position, which saddens me greatly.
    Depends where you live,the poor parts of this country were just sh!t on even more with freedom of movement, something I expect you won't have the experience of.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,383
    The most interesting feature of the above poll is that in addition to all the other discoveries we've recently made about the character of 'Leavers' we've now discovered there's also a good chance they'll be anti-Semites.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416

    And the tweet of the day award goes to Chris Williamson:



    How many tweeters do you follow ?

    You must be a bit of a glutton for punishment in following so many of the Corbyn fan club.
  • Roger said:

    The most interesting feature of the above poll is that in addition to all the other discoveries we've recently made about the character of 'Leavers' we've now discovered there's also a good chance they'll be anti-Semites.

    Go on, then Rog, tell me what you have found out about me?
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 906

    kle4 said:



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
    I am in favour of freedom of movement amongst citizens of the EU, since you ask. I realise that is now an extreme position, which saddens me greatly.
    Are you in favour of freedom of movement for the whole world ?

    If not then its merely a discussion about where we draw the line.
    No, and yes, it is indeed. Which is why arguing that immigration from a particular geography is bad economically while that from another geography is not, makes no sense.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,383

    Roger said:

    The most interesting feature of the above poll is that in addition to all the other discoveries we've recently made about the character of 'Leavers' we've now discovered there's also a good chance they'll be anti-Semites.

    Go on, then Rog, tell me what you have found out about me?
    That apart from being Britain's finest statistically there's a 42/58% chance you're an anti-Semite
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,280
    Roger said:

    The most interesting feature of the above poll is that in addition to all the other discoveries we've recently made about the character of 'Leavers' we've now discovered there's also a good chance they'll be anti-Semites.

    I'm far from sure that antisemitism is a 'feature' of the left or right of this country; it transcends such labels. You will find such views in the Conservative Party, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP et al.

    Labour has got itself into a pickle not because those views are held by some in the membership, but because the leadership has handled antisemitic comments within their party in an utterly cack-handed way. They have made it seem as though such views have a home within the party - and that's Corbyn's main crime.

    Sadly, I reckon there will be more people with antisemitic views after this latest utterly avoidable mess than there were before ...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,888
    I doubt if anti-semitism is popular, in general. But, I also doubt that it is very unpopular, outside a few constituencies.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,888
    viewcode said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Page 15 of the Antisemitism Barometer 2017 (source of this survey):

    Perceived Threats

    Primary perceived threat: X 48%, Far Left 29%, Far Right 18%, Other 5%.

    I wonder if anyone can guess, without looking, what X might be? because as it beats the combined score of Far Left and Far Right, it seems perverse to regard this as being primarily about political alignments.

    OK, I give up. What is "X"?
    Borat.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,975


    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    I can't remember the name of that fallacy but it's obviously dumb.

    "You'd be healthier if you ate less food."
    "So you'd be healthier if you ate no food at all then"

    That said, if the police and welfare systems didn't fall apart then it would put the economic magimix on puree which probably would be great for jobs for young British people.

    I'll take that as an acceptence that I'm right.
    ... or you could read what Edmund wrote.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416

    kle4 said:



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
    I am in favour of freedom of movement amongst citizens of the EU, since you ask. I realise that is now an extreme position, which saddens me greatly.
    Are you in favour of freedom of movement for the whole world ?

    If not then its merely a discussion about where we draw the line.
    No, and yes, it is indeed. Which is why arguing that immigration from a particular geography is bad economically while that from another geography is not, makes no sense.
    Different countries have different people so immigrants from one place might have a different effect to immigrants from another.

    Although immigration can be based upon the location of people or the type of people.

    So Eastern European immigrants might have a negative effect on working class wages and neighbourhoods while being beneficial to the middle classes whereas Indian doctors and scientists wouldn't affect the working classes but would provide competition for jobs and housing with middle class people.

    And inevitably people's view on immigration is affected by the consequences it has on them personally.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 15,174

    And the tweet of the day award goes to Chris Williamson:



    How many tweeters do you follow ?

    You must be a bit of a glutton for punishment in following so many of the Corbyn fan club.
    :lol: Yes, it is getting a bit worrying.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,178

    kle4 said:



    My point, since you’re being obtuse, is that arguing there is a negative impact on young people in a particular region (say London) of inward migration from outside the UK must mean there is a similar impact from inside the UK.

    So by your logic it would benefit them economically by limiting the numbers coming from say Scotland.

    You appear to be very confused. I haven't been obtuse because my sole comment in your discussion with another richard was on whether you had an issue with nations treating foreigners differently to citizens. I've not said a word about negative impacts on young people.

    So, no, I haven't been obtuse, because I was asking a tangential question in your debate, not siding one way or another in it. 'My' logic hasn't commented on who would benefit economically by limiting numbers from elsewhere in the UK to London one way or another. I was simply curious as to whether you had an issue with foreigners being subject to different rules at all, irrespective of what those rules were.

    Unless you think it is obtuse to ask a tangential question. Certainly you are ascribing to me opinions I've not expressed a view on re impacts on young people.
    I am in favour of freedom of movement amongst citizens of the EU, since you ask. I realise that is now an extreme position, which saddens me greatly.
    Are you in favour of freedom of movement for the whole world ?

    If not then its merely a discussion about where we draw the line.
    No, and yes, it is indeed. Which is why arguing that immigration from a particular geography is bad economically while that from another geography is not, makes no sense.
    Different countries have different people so immigrants from one place might have a different effect to immigrants from another.

    Although immigration can be based upon the location of people or the type of people.

    So Eastern European immigrants might have a negative effect on working class wages and neighbourhoods while being beneficial to the middle classes whereas Indian doctors and scientists wouldn't affect the working classes but would provide competition for jobs and housing with middle class people.

    And inevitably people's view on immigration is affected by the consequences it has on them personally.
    +1
  • Yorkcity said:

    TSE confirming his reputation on PB. And not in a good way.

    I think he must have had a good drink , when he wrote this thread.
    As a good Muslim boy I am greatly offended by your insinuation that I wrote this thread drunk.

    Does anyone here know how to report a hate crime?

    I need to report one.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,416


    So by that definition if we allowed unlimited immigration from the entire world that would also be deemed good for young people.

    Think through what the actual consequences would be and consider if young people would actually benefit ...

    I can't remember the name of that fallacy but it's obviously dumb.

    "You'd be healthier if you ate less food."
    "So you'd be healthier if you ate no food at all then"

    That said, if the police and welfare systems didn't fall apart then it would put the economic magimix on puree which probably would be great for jobs for young British people.

    I'll take that as an acceptence that I'm right.
    ... or you could read what Edmund wrote.
    Or Edmund could have tried to reply to what I said.

    Now unless Edmund supports unlimited freedom of movement to Britain from anywhere in the world then its merely questions of where you draw the line and how you put up the barriers.

    And currently it is harder for an Indian scientist to move to Britain than it is for a Romanian potato picker.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,720
    Mr. Eagles, considering your wardrobe is a hate crime against epileptics, I'd be wary of going down that road.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,225
    I wasn't able to look at the whole poll, the pages kept accelerating up & down in a manner that got too tiresome after a while.

    However one thing that did puzzle me was that they showed results from Christians and from Catholics. What religion do they think Catholics are?

    Good evening, everybody.
This discussion has been closed.