Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Turn up for the books.............The hard left guy gets on the ballot for the Labour leadership !!....Managed to bag 35 nominations although some were chucked at him by Burnham who will no doubt pick up many of his second preferences...........

Corbyn has no chance....

However it means one of the other three is likely to get hurt in the first round..........Corbyn no doubt will hoover up the extreme nutty left of which there are no doubt plenty in the Labour party and will probably get enough to take him through the first round !!...

(Cruddas finished top in the 2007 Deputy leader race after the first round (He was the "left" candidate)...Of course Harman and Johnson did better as the rounds progresses with second prefs...)

That means one of the three favorites is likely to be eliminated first..................

Latest odds............

Burnham 10/11
Kendall 5/2
Cooper 3/1
Corbyn 66/1 .................

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:It would be safe to assume, given that this is not the first time, that the Muslim women were forced to sit in that particular way.

No, it really wouldn't. You do know that many Muslim women wear the Niqab out of choice, don't you? Different customs have different ways of doing things. You just don't like it so you're making things up to support your flimsy argument and ridiculous tabloid story.

'Choice' following actual free will or 'choice' following religious indoctrination??

It doesn't matter. We live in a free society and, seeing as there is clearly no evidence whatsoever of forced segregation, it's ridiculous to assume that anyone was forced to sit somewhere against their will.

What seems to be far more disturbing is the bullying scandal surrounding the Tories and the way they tried to whitewash it before being practically forced to have an independent inquiry.

Spot on........Many muslim women wear it through choice...and that's it.

Schoolyard bullying worse than forced segregation? Behave.

Those muslim women weren't sitting seperately because the men smelt a bit, FFS.......

Again, totally unsubstantiated rubbish, Toppy. You're better than that.

Bullying that led to the suicide of a young man. Yeah, that's pretty bad.

Are you crying over all the bankers that've committed suicide? Doubt it.

But ok. Muslim women all gladly wear the veil, all happily sit apart from their men in poorer seating, all joyfully have their vaginas cut to shreds in female circumsion and are all willfully subservient to their husbands. Allah be praised!!

Pr4wn wrote:Again, totally unsubstantiated rubbish, Toppy. You're better than that.

Bullying that led to the suicide of a young man. Yeah, that's pretty bad.

Right = Good.

Left = Bad..

TopHat24/7 wrote:Are you crying over all the bankers that've committed suicide? Doubt it.

But ok.  Muslim women all gladly wear the veil, all happily sit apart from their men in poorer seating, all joyfully have their vaginas cut to shreds in female circumsion and are all willfully subservient to their husbands. Allah be praised!!

That's not what I'm saying. I'm sure that there are some instances where Muslim women have to wear it against their will, just as many western women are forced to wear certain clothes by their over-protective husbands. At no point did I suggest that they're all doing it freely. Please don't go all Daily Mail on me.

But for you to assume that they're all segregated against their will is ridiculous. And you know it. It's a straw-man argument.

Lastly, it's terribly sad when anybody commits suicide. I do a lot of work with Mind here in Jersey to try to help people in situations like that.

Good luck to you Pr4wn...

Yep suicide is like a pebble hitting a pond.....The ripples go out and out.....

Must be a terrible thing especially if it's your kid........My sister died years ago through drink and I still get upset now over some of the things I said to her in her final months....through basic ignorance.

Horrible horrible when there is no closure..

Rachel Sylvester in the Times :......These days the Labour party is the party for the down and outs not for people like me...

What a nice thing to say !!............Do journalists rank higher than down and outs these days ?? and don't down and outs deserve someone looking out for them...

Corbyn is a clown and I won't vote Labour while he's there...but I must admit I'd rather not vote for a party where I thought this Woman's condescending view on society was predominant...

Poor Poor show......

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:It would be safe to assume, given that this is not the first time, that the Muslim women were forced to sit in that particular way.

No, it really wouldn't. You do know that many Muslim women wear the Niqab out of choice, don't you? Different customs have different ways of doing things. You just don't like it so you're making things up to support your flimsy argument and ridiculous tabloid story.

Indeed, and it's perfectly fair to be critical and opposed to them.

Gender segregation is wrong. Marriage under Sharia Law is wrong. Female genital mutilation is wrong.

Agreed on all three counts. But you're failing to evidence any link between that ridiculous article you posted and any of these things.

There is absolutely no evidence of forced gender segregation in that photo. None at all.

Pr4wn wrote:Agreed on all three counts. But you're failing to evidence any link between that ridiculous article you posted and any of these things.

There is absolutely no evidence of forced gender segregation in that photo. None at all.

It is quite clear there is gender segregation among the Muslim men & women. You just chose not to acknowledge that it may not be through free will, adopting a definition of 'forced' to suit your rhetoric.

Unoppressed white women, true to the values of this country, clearly couldn't give a f*** about BS Muslim 'customs' and sat where they damn well pleased.

And by that moronic logic the Muslim women couldn't give a f*** about white culture and chose to sat on the other side of the hall from their husbands.

What I'm saying (and what you're persistently ignoring) is that by posting - or supporting - such a stupid article, the onus is on you or Duty to provide proof that the segregation is false. You've yet to do that or even try, so I'm within my right to call BS.

If it was a Tory meeting.....The article would be bollox...

Pr4wn wrote:Agreed on all three counts. But you're failing to evidence any link between that ridiculous article you posted and any of these things.

There is absolutely no evidence of forced gender segregation in that photo. None at all.

Is it not painfully obvious that if Muslim men and women sit apart, based on their gender, then it is gender segregation?

Particularly when it has happened before - like in Birmingham, a few months ago, when Harriet Harman said that sex segregation is better than men-only meetings.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Agreed on all three counts. But you're failing to evidence any link between that ridiculous article you posted and any of these things.

There is absolutely no evidence of forced gender segregation in that photo. None at all.

Is it not painfully obvious that if Muslim men and women sit apart, based on their gender, then it is gender segregation?

Particularly when it has happened before - like in Birmingham, a few months ago, when Harriet Harman said that sex segregation is better than men-only meetings.

I'm not disputing that the men and women were sat separately. That is, as you say, painfully obvious.

What you and your tin-foil hat article are suggesting is that this segregation was forced. I say, prove it or shut up.

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Agreed on all three counts. But you're failing to evidence any link between that ridiculous article you posted and any of these things.

There is absolutely no evidence of forced gender segregation in that photo. None at all.

Is it not painfully obvious that if Muslim men and women sit apart, based on their gender, then it is gender segregation?

Particularly when it has happened before - like in Birmingham, a few months ago, when Harriet Harman said that sex segregation is better than men-only meetings.

I'm not disputing that the men and women were sat separately. That is, as you say, painfully obvious.

What you and your tin-foil hat article are suggesting is that this segregation was forced. I say, prove it or shut up.

You're totally bang on, mate.

The Muslim women in that audience had a perfectly free choice of where to sit and - by some amazing coincidence - all of them chose to sit on one side of the room. That's freedom for you. No religious indoctrination involved whatsoever. Sensational stuff.

Glad we cleared that up.

Why don't you grow up Duty..

Pr4wn wrote:And by that moronic logic the Muslim women couldn't give a f*** about white culture and chose to sat on the other side of the hall from their husbands.

'Choose'

This guy talks about indoctrination, hilarious.

I say prove it and he replies only with sarcasm. Re-read what I've posted earlier in the thread, then try to reply as if this is a grown-up discussion. Until then, you're not worth the energy.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:And by that moronic logic the Muslim women couldn't give a f*** about white culture and chose to sat on the other side of the hall from their husbands.

'Choose'

The meeting happened in the past. They chose to sit on opposite sides of the room.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why don't you grow up Duty..

I'm sorry my lad, I descended to his level.

Pr4wn wrote:This guy talks about indoctrination, hilarious.

I say prove it and he replies only with sarcasm. Re-read what I've posted earlier in the thread, then try to reply as if this is a grown-up discussion. Until then, you're not worth the energy.

Who are you talking to?

As you're replies aren't actually getting you anywhere like what you think they are.

As I said, you're twisting the definition of 'forced' to suit your apologist head in the sand rhetoric.  I.e. that it was only 'forced' if they walked into the room and the men and/or meeting organisers said "you must sit over there".  I would say 'forced' included decades of indoctrination and religious & cultural oppression meaning they weren't 'allowed' to sit anywhere else and knew it without having to be told it/have a gun put to their head.

Again, it's like saying face vails and gender mutilation are also not 'forced'.

Pr4wn wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:And by that moronic logic the Muslim women couldn't give a f*** about white culture and chose to sat on the other side of the hall from their husbands.

'Choose'

The meeting happened in the past. They chose to sit on opposite sides of the room.

Chalk that up as a win, nearest you're going to get.

Think I'll retire from this since you can't actually sustain a rebuttal and its been made clear that mods loosing arguments resort to banning and I promised to behave.

Will leave you to bicker with Duty.

Interpretation is 9/10 of the law...

Just thankful we have so many objective right wingers to tell us the proper facts !!.

TopHat24/7 wrote:As I said, you're twisting the definition of 'forced' to suit your apologist head in the sand rhetoric.  I.e. that it was only 'forced' is they walked into the room and the men and/or meeting organisers said "you must sit over there".  I would say 'forced' included decades of indoctrination and religious & cultural oppression meaning they weren't 'allowed' to sit anywhere else and knew it without having to be told it/have a gun put to there head.

Again, it's like saying face vails and gender mutilation are also not 'forced'.

Well said.

But opens up another discussion altogether. Is the freedom to practice religion in this country really a freedom? At the moment the law says it is so I'll stick with that.

TopHat27/7 wrote:Again, it's like saying face vails (sic) and gender mutilation are also not 'forced'.

FGM is obviously forced (an illegal). It also has nothing to do with this argument. The veil is an interesting argument. Many Muslim women freely wear the veil, it's their decision. Saying that they're somehow forced because they've been indoctrinated by religion is like saying that Catholics are forced against their will into a church every Sunday. It's nonsense.

Labour still a strong 1/3 to win Oldham I see.....

Clinton 5/6.................Rubio 4/1................(Rubio's odds will come down when he wins the GOP)

Corbyn 8/1 to be next prime minister...........In a two horse race that's lame..

Osborne huge favorite for Conservative leader after Cammy.

Jarvis strong favorite for Labour leader at 9/2...Benn next at 8/1...Watson 9/1

Corbyn 8/13 to be still in charge in 2017......Lousy bet.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Interpretation is 9/10 of the law...

Just thankful we have so many objective right wingers to tell us the proper facts !!.

I have taken some much-needed guidance from the Qur'an:

"If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them of the teachings of Allah, then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them."

Praise be to Allah!

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Chalk that up as a win, nearest you're going to get.

Think I'll retire from this since you can't actually sustain a rebuttal and its been made clear that mods loosing arguments resort to banning and I promised to behave.  

Will leave you to bicker with Duty.

Actually, it's "losing"....or are you meaning that Mods loose off arguments rather like artillery looses off shells?

navyblueshorts wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Chalk that up as a win, nearest you're going to get.

Think I'll retire from this since you can't actually sustain a rebuttal and its been made clear that mods loosing arguments resort to banning and I promised to behave.  

Will leave you to bicker with Duty.

Actually, it's "losing"....or are you meaning that Mods loose off arguments rather like artillery looses off shells?

I know I said I was out, but that was a good spot, so I will stay for a: "LOL"

Pr4wn has absolutely cleaned them up..

Duty281 wrote:The Muslim women in that audience had a perfectly free choice of where to sit and - by some amazing coincidence - all of them chose to sit on one side of the room. That's freedom for you. No religious indoctrination involved whatsoever. Sensational stuff.

The point is that you're blaming Labour for holding segregated meetings, even though you don't have anything to suggest they encouraged it in any way. What exactly is it that you want; for Labour to not talk to muslims, or for them to force people to sit together?

He's UKIP...He's against any form of racism and bigotry !!

Lowlandbrit wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The Muslim women in that audience had a perfectly free choice of where to sit and - by some amazing coincidence - all of them chose to sit on one side of the room. That's freedom for you. No religious indoctrination involved whatsoever. Sensational stuff.

The point is that you're blaming Labour for holding segregated meetings, even though you don't have anything to suggest they encouraged it in any way. What exactly is it that you want; for Labour to not talk to muslims, or for them to force people to sit together?

I would like Labour to not hold any meetings where gender segregation is happening. They need to say it is wrong and it is divisive. Walk out if necessary. I don't see any other party holding meetings where the audience has been segregated by gender (though I'm perfectly happy to be corrected on that point).

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He's UKIP...He's against any form of racism and bigotry !!

Yep. UKIP are likely to be the first major political party in this country to have a leader who isn't white, by the way.

Now grow up Truss...

I'd prefer for Labour to hold meetings where people can sit wherever they like which appears to be what has happened, despite your ignorance or apparent refusal to understand.

Good to see we're all focussing on the important issues.

Like chiming in with smart-aleck remarks.

Oldham East today..Poor old Corbyn can't win whatever happens..

Sooner they end this nightmare the better...

The public deserve to have an opposition party in serious times.

Sounds like a dismal turnout of around 20%, largely due to the atrocious weather, but the postal vote system should push it up to the 30-35% mark.

Labour's majority is predicted to be heavily slashed to one of anywhere from a few hundred to 4,000...or maybe UKIP have nicked it at the last?

Lib Dems saying Labour have got 60% of the vote, but Labour are being far more pessimistic and saying that UKIP have (somehow) got approximately a third of the postal vote and won more votes on the day.

Duty281 wrote:Sounds like a dismal turnout of around 20%, largely due to the atrocious weather, but the postal vote system should push it up to the 30-35% mark.

Labour's majority is predicted to be heavily slashed to one of anywhere from a few hundred to 4,000...or maybe UKIP have nicked it at the last?

Lib Dems saying Labour have got 60% of the vote, but Labour are being far more pessimistic and saying that UKIP have (somehow) got approximately a third of the postal vote and won more votes on the day.

or maybe not

UKIP now suggesting postal vote is "undemocratic" you could not make this stuff up.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Sounds like a dismal turnout of around 20%, largely due to the atrocious weather, but the postal vote system should push it up to the 30-35% mark.

Labour's majority is predicted to be heavily slashed to one of anywhere from a few hundred to 4,000...or maybe UKIP have nicked it at the last?

Lib Dems saying Labour have got 60% of the vote, but Labour are being far more pessimistic and saying that UKIP have (somehow) got approximately a third of the postal vote and won more votes on the day.

or maybe not

UKIP now suggesting postal vote is "undemocratic" you could not make this stuff up.

Yes, the postal vote system is pretty atrocious, in all fairness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26520836

UKIP also blaming their failure on Asian voters. Can't think why Asians wouldn't want to vote for "not-a-racist-party" UKIP?

sorry for the gloating, but after all the ridiculous attempts by the media to portray this as a must-win for Corbyn, and now to immediately be back-tracking to suggest that the result was entirely expected (not exactly what they were saying in the run-in), with sky's reporters looking like they might burst into tears . Good news has been hard to come by recently, so let me enjoy my moment

Mad for Chelsea wrote:UKIP also blaming their failure on Asian voters. Can't think why Asians wouldn't want to vote for "not-a-racist-party" UKIP?

sorry for the gloating, but after all the ridiculous attempts by the media to portray this as a must-win for Corbyn, and now to immediately be back-tracking to suggest that the result was entirely expected (not exactly what they were saying in the run-in), with sky's reporters looking like they might burst into tears . Good news has been hard to come by recently, so let me enjoy my moment

No, I think it's that idiot Paul Nuttall spouting off again. The actual candidate, John Bickley, is of a far higher class than him and deserves better.

Nige is off on a bit of a rant on Twitter. I hope he backs it up this time - if the postal vote was bent, produce some evidence to that effect, and show it to the Electoral Commission. Otherwise shut up.

"Labour's success "appears to have been secured with an effective postal vote operation", the Press Association reports." from the BBC feed. Maths obviously not their strong point, since even if you discount all the postal votes Labour would have won with a majority of 4,000 or so and a 50% share of the votes...

In fairness, it wouldn't be the first time Labour has election success based on postal voting in heavily immigrant (particularly asian/muslim) areas. Tower Hamlets, anyone??

The comfortable hold Corbyn really needed after this week.

Doesn't really bode well for UKIP if they couldn't even make a dent in Labour this week.

Question is, did the pollsters just get this massively wrong (again)?

Or was it reflective of Labour's ability to engineer strong postal voting (not sugesting impropriety)?

Or was it just the old classic mean reversion of, actually, when staring at the voting card, people stick with what they know and ditch the grumbles they vented to pollsters and news agencies etc?

Wonder if their systems are capable of handling a political system that suddenly has more than 2-3 serious players.

Strong postal voting may have helped, but it's worth mentioning (again) that even without ANY postal votes Labour would still have won with roughly a 4,000 majority and a 50% share of the votes. That's still significantly larger than any of the media were suggesting in the run-up.

It's interesting that the polls got the GE badly wrong in under-estimating the Conservative vote, but in this one they completely under-estimated Labour support. It could be as Toppy suggests that when faced with the card, people end up sticking with what they know. But I also wonder if polls were unduly influenced somehow by the media's anti-Corbyn stance, and attempts to make this vote much much closer than it was as a result of his apparent unpopularity.