UK General Election

[MikeG]

The issue of mass circulation newspapers is germane with respect to the General Election hegemony. Fact is, the DAILY MAIL has one of the best (in the sense of being 'user friendly') online webpages and thus, its lead up stories about Jeremy romping with Diane (hello? 'A man and woman had sex in the 70's', is relevant current news?|) and all the nonsense about a bunch of screaming 'hate preachers' turning up at the same Palestine Issue rally as Corbyn yonks ago, is relevant inasmuch as how far did it influence voters?

1I am pretty sure the MAIL and the SUN influenced Brexit.

But are they governed by a conservative readership? 2Statistics show that the working classes are now predominantly conservative voters (some 46%) so we see this reflected in the 'LEAVE' vote, as IMV 3the working classes are more likely to express anti-foreigner sentiment than the better-travelled middle classes, who will have met people of different cultures at university.

4The key demographics between the parties now seems to be young (Labour) versus the older (Conservative).

Likewise this (young) group is more pro-Europe and free movement across the EU.

To much stated as fact in this post. How about backing all these individual claims up.

 

[Vixen]

To much stated as fact in this post. How about backing all these individual claims up.

The 46% working class is a demographic fact I read re the breakdown of the conservative vote. The xenophobic opinion clearly states 'IMV' which means 'In My View', in other words, my opinion.

 

[baron]

IMV the working classes are more likely to express anti-foreigner sentiment than the better-travelled middle classes, who will have met people of different cultures at university.

Or, sans inaccurate snobbery, the working classes are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than the middle-classes who don't have to live in the midst of it and deal with the problems it can bring.

 

[The Don]

Or, sans inaccurate snobbery, the working classes are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than the middle-classes who don't have to live in the midst of it and deal with the problems it can bring.

Except the most diverse areas are not anti-immigration.

And of course many of the issues attributed to immigration, such as a squeeze on the NHS, local services and schools (if they actually exist instead of being an urban myth like immigrants getting council housing in preference to locals), are due to "austerity", not immigrants (who, let's remember, are net contributors).

Of course that isn't the narrative from the likes of the Mail, Express and Sun.

 

[jimbob]

Or, sans inaccurate snobbery, the working classes are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than the middle-classes who don't have to live in the midst of it and deal with the problems it can bring.

Bollocks

There is lots of evidence in the UK that the more homogeneous a place is, the higher the proportion of people expressing xenophobic sentiment.

That certainly fits with my experience. My kids' secondary school is rural and very homogeneous - which my kids recognise. The college where the eldest is and where my son will go next term is very diverse.

It's easier to be afraid of an unknown group than one that includes some of your circle of friends.

 

[baron]

Bollocks

There is lots of evidence in the UK that the more homogeneous a place is, the higher the proportion of people expressing xenophobic sentiment.

Yet you've posted no evidence, just "bollocks". No worries, I'll post some evidence for you.

From Natcen, the UK's largest independent research organisation.

(from table 9)

Anti-immigration sentiment from the middle class: 48%
Anti-immigration sentiment from the working class: 65%

Pro-immigration sentiment from the middle class: 52%
Pro-immigration sentiment from the working class: 35%

Factoring in work class along with identified class the result is even more pronounced (table 10).

- Within each occupational class, those who identify as working class are more likely to be authoritarian and less likely to be pro-immigrant.​

That certainly fits with my experience.

What fits with your experience? "Bollocks"? The evidence clearly doesn't.

My kids' secondary school is rural and very homogeneous - which my kids recognise. The college where the eldest is and where my son will go next term is very diverse.

Cool story.

 

[jimbob]

Yet you've posted no evidence, just "bollocks". No worries, I'll post some evidence for you.

From Natcen, the UK's largest independent research organisation.

(from table 9)

Anti-immigration sentiment from the middle class: 48%
Anti-immigration sentiment from the working class: 65%

Pro-immigration sentiment from the middle class: 52%
Pro-immigration sentiment from the working class: 35%

Factoring in work class along with identified class the result is even more pronounced (table 10).

- Within each occupational class, those who identify as working class are more likely to be authoritarian and less likely to be pro-immigrant.​

What fits with your experience? "Bollocks"? The evidence clearly doesn't.



Cool story.

And what has that to do with areas of ethnic diversity?

Stoke on Trent is 94% white and was famous for being a BNP stronghold.

I don;t disagree with the class aspect, but I do with your ethinc diversity one

 

[baron]

And what has that to do with areas of ethnic diversity?

It has to do with the statement I made, namely "the working classes are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than the middle-classes who don't have to live in the midst of it and deal with the problems it can bring".

Stoke on Trent is 94% white and was famous for being a BNP stronghold.

I don;t disagree with the class aspect, but I do with your ethinc diversity one

Yes you did disagree, you called it "bollocks." I only made one statement and you disagreed with it.

 

[jimbob]

It has to do with the statement I made, namely "the working classes are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than the middle-classes who don't have to live in the midst of it and deal with the problems it can bring".



Yes you did disagree, you called it "bollocks." I only made one statement and you disagreed with it.

No, I was disagreeing with the statement that "who don't have to live in the midst of it and deal with the problems it can bring"

The White working class in overwhelmingly white areas are more xenophobic than the white working class in areas with ethnic diversity.

That doesn't sound like the problem being due to the immigration. It sounds as though immigration is a convenient scapegoat.

ETA: And that was the Don's point too

Except the most diverse areas are not anti-immigration.

And of course many of the issues attributed to immigration, such as a squeeze on the NHS, local services and schools (if they actually exist instead of being an urban myth like immigrants getting council housing in preference to locals), are due to "austerity", not immigrants (who, let's remember, are net contributors).

Of course that isn't the narrative from the likes of the Mail, Express and Sun.

 

[dudalb]

And Trump wants to "Push Back" his October UK visit; or maybe cancel his visit altogether given how unpopular he is in the UK.
May's being seen as toadying up to Trump, though probably not a major factor, did not help her any in the election. I bet behind closed doors a great many Tories were disgusted by that.

 

[dudalb]

No, I was trying to whip up some good old moral outrage about the savage bigots who would dare to affront humanity by protesting the right of citizens to march down a street in a democratic society. I didn't manage it, hence you may have detected a certain lack of enthusiasm in my response.

That the whole purpose of the parades was to insult and belittle Catholics in their own neighborhoods seems to have passed you by.
Or maybe Catholics have joined Muslims on your hate list.

 

[MikeG]

.........I bet behind closed doors a great many Tories were disgusted by that.

No no, because conservatives "hate wogs and poofs", and so does Donald.

 

[baron]

No, I was disagreeing with the statement that "who don't have to live in the midst of it and deal with the problems it can bring"

The White working class in overwhelmingly white areas are more xenophobic than the white working class in areas with ethnic diversity.

That doesn't sound like the problem being due to the immigration. It sounds as though immigration is a convenient scapegoat.

ETA: And that was the Don's point too

You're putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned white people, I said working class and middle class which can and do include people of all sorts of ethnicities. Certainly some of the most vocal protests against immigration I have heard come from settled immigrants. Also (from memory), the issue with whites is not clear cut in that as the sample areas increase the tolerance reduces and then reverses.

 

[baron]

That the whole purpose of the parades was to insult and belittle Catholics in their own neighborhoods seems to have passed you by.
Or maybe Catholics have joined Muslims on your hate list.

Not yet but I'll pencil them in.

 

[ddt]

I don't have a problem with the UK being responsible for its own commitment to human rights. In fact, it is rather embarrassing to think that the UK cannot be trusted and must be watched over to keep it from being naughty.

Shame on you, Soba, you can do better than that.

First, we can agree that the UK is a country that, in general, respects human rights. And so is my country, the Netherlands. But no country is without blemish in that regard. I can name two fairly recent cases where the ECHR ruled against my country. In the Netherlands, traditionally suspects had no right to counsel before or during police interrogation. You may find that odd, because you have that right. And so did the ECHR, and ruled that there is a right to counsel, at least preceding police interrogations. The Dutch Minister of Justice was not happy, in a time of budget cuts, but he implemented a scheme with on-call lawyers so that suspects who are brought in can consult a lawyer before being interrogated. That scheme costs quite a penny, in a time of austerity, but I've never heard anyone suggest we ditch the ECHR for it.

Another case is life imprisonment. The ECHR has ruled in various cases that there must be a legally enshrined guarantee that life sentences are reviewed, e.g., after 25 years, with the possibility of early release. The two offending countries here are the Netherlands, which never had a review, and the UK (England&Wales), where the 25-year-review was abolished in 2003. Since those ECHR verdicts, at least one court has openly refused to pronounce a life sentence, and in another case, the Dutch supreme court has remanded a case and given politics a one-year ultimatum to fix the law. Politics, as usual, has been dragging their feet about a solution, but as long as they don't fix it, judges simply won't pronounce a life verdict, as they respect the authority of the ECHR.

Those are two serious cases, and never have I heard anyone suggest we ditch the ECHR because they interfere with "our" business. When you're serious about human rights, you get them right 999 out of 1,000 times and you're not afraid that someone criticizes you for getting them wrong that 1,000th time.

Second, if there's one country in Europe that indeed needs an external watchdog, it is the UK. Most European countries have a written constitution, with a Bill of Rights, that is hard to change, and judicial review so people have access to the courts to argue that a law is unconstitutional. That gives a strong guarantee that domestic courts safeguard human rights.

The UK, on the other hand, has no explicit constitution and no hierarchy in laws. The 1688 Bill of Rights or the Human Rights Act can simply be amended or superseded by a new law in Parliament with a simple 50% plus one majority, on the political whim of the day. Or, to take The Don's example, the time someone can be detained without charge on the incantation of the magic word "terrorist" can be increased without any recourse to courts to argue that this is an infringement of due process.

Third, seventy years ago one of your most illustrious statesmen, Theresa May's predecessor, toured Europe to share his vision of post-WW2 Europe. In The Hague, he spoke these words:

The Movement for European Unity must be a positive force, deriving its strength from our sense of common spiritual values. It is a dynamic expression of democratic faith based upon moral conceptions and inspired by a sense of mission. In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.

He was one of the founders of the Council of Europe, and it was his vision to draw up the European Convention on Human Rights, which is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights. The mission of the Council of Europe is modest: promotion of democracy and the rule of law. But that also means that all European countries, save Belarus and Vatican, are members. When in the 1970s, the dictatorships in Spain and Portugal fell, they joined. When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989/1990, the Eastern European states immediately joined as well. It is the one truly pan-European family.

The ECHR - both the Convention and the Court - are a cornerstone of the Council of Europe. Leaving the ECHR effectively means leaving the Council and joining the ranks of a dictatorship and a theocracy. It means turning your back to those "common spiritual values". Those are not the words of a loony left-wing Labour politician, but of none other than the greatest icon of the Conservatives in the 20th century, Sir Winston Churchill. Moreover, the Convention was not just his idea; in no small part, it was British legal experts who drafted the convention. Leaving it means turning your back on your own creation. But Patrick Stewart explains that better, in a Pythonesque way:



As I said before, all European states are member of the Council. Even Lukashenko would be glad to join, if they'd only let him. Every European country has, at one time or another, been reprimanded by the ECHR for infringement of human rights, but no politician has ever openly questioned membership of the Council or adherence to the verdicts of the ECHR, not even the Euroskeptics and bigots like Farage, Wilders, or Le Pen; except for the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Seventy years ago, its leader commanded the defence of your country and liberation of mine from evil tyranny, and proudly announced the creation of the Council of Europe as a safeguard for shared European, democratic values:



But the last years, all we hear from its leaders - first from Cameron, now from May - is that they want to leave the ECHR. Let May, if she has the guts, go on that same balcony in Strasbourg and explain why she wants to turn her back on Sir Winston's ideas and hope of shared European values of democracy and the rule of law.

 

[jimbob]

Well said

 

[MikeG]

........Leaving the ECHR effectively means leaving the Council and joining the ranks of a dictatorship and a theocracy..........

No, no, no. This is overblown. Hyperbolic.

Tell me, is New Zealand a member of the ECHR? Is it a dictatorship or a theocracy? You have set up a really very silly false dichotomy.

 

[Darat]

No, no, no. This is overblown. Hyperbolic.

Tell me, is New Zealand a member of the ECHR? Is it a dictatorship or a theocracy? You have set up a really very silly false dichotomy.

Ok let's remove that sentence as hyperbolic. Any comments on the remaining?

 

[MikeG]

My only comment is that different countries embed the ECHR into their own laws in different ways. We may or may not want to have a look at how (Blair, I think?) did this. We also may want to reassess some of the balances between, say, terrorist's rights to a family life and our desire to be rid of said terrorists. But this is a classic baby/ bathwater situation.

 

[angrysoba]

Shame on you, Soba, you can do better than that.

First, we can agree that the UK is a country that, in general, respects human rights. And so is my country, the Netherlands. But no country is without blemish in that regard. I can name two fairly recent cases where the ECHR ruled against my country. In the Netherlands, traditionally suspects had no right to counsel before or during police interrogation. You may find that odd, because you have that right. And so did the ECHR, and ruled that there is a right to counsel, at least preceding police interrogations. The Dutch Minister of Justice was not happy, in a time of budget cuts, but he implemented a scheme with on-call lawyers so that suspects who are brought in can consult a lawyer before being interrogated. That scheme costs quite a penny, in a time of austerity, but I've never heard anyone suggest we ditch the ECHR for it.

Another case is life imprisonment. The ECHR has ruled in various cases that there must be a legally enshrined guarantee that life sentences are reviewed, e.g., after 25 years, with the possibility of early release. The two offending countries here are the Netherlands, which never had a review, and the UK (England&Wales), where the 25-year-review was abolished in 2003. Since those ECHR verdicts, at least one court has openly refused to pronounce a life sentence, and in another case, the Dutch supreme court has remanded a case and given politics a one-year ultimatum to fix the law. Politics, as usual, has been dragging their feet about a solution, but as long as they don't fix it, judges simply won't pronounce a life verdict, as they respect the authority of the ECHR.

Those are two serious cases, and never have I heard anyone suggest we ditch the ECHR because they interfere with "our" business. When you're serious about human rights, you get them right 999 out of 1,000 times and you're not afraid that someone criticizes you for getting them wrong that 1,000th time.

Second, if there's one country in Europe that indeed needs an external watchdog, it is the UK. Most European countries have a written constitution, with a Bill of Rights, that is hard to change, and judicial review so people have access to the courts to argue that a law is unconstitutional. That gives a strong guarantee that domestic courts safeguard human rights.

The UK, on the other hand, has no explicit constitution and no hierarchy in laws. The 1688 Bill of Rights or the Human Rights Act can simply be amended or superseded by a new law in Parliament with a simple 50% plus one majority, on the political whim of the day. Or, to take The Don's example, the time someone can be detained without charge on the incantation of the magic word "terrorist" can be increased without any recourse to courts to argue that this is an infringement of due process.

Third, seventy years ago one of your most illustrious statesmen, Theresa May's predecessor, toured Europe to share his vision of post-WW2 Europe. In The Hague, he spoke these words:

He was one of the founders of the Council of Europe, and it was his vision to draw up the European Convention on Human Rights, which is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights. The mission of the Council of Europe is modest: promotion of democracy and the rule of law. But that also means that all European countries, save Belarus and Vatican, are members. When in the 1970s, the dictatorships in Spain and Portugal fell, they joined. When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989/1990, the Eastern European states immediately joined as well. It is the one truly pan-European family.

The ECHR - both the Convention and the Court - are a cornerstone of the Council of Europe. Leaving the ECHR effectively means leaving the Council and joining the ranks of a dictatorship and a theocracy. It means turning your back to those "common spiritual values". Those are not the words of a loony left-wing Labour politician, but of none other than the greatest icon of the Conservatives in the 20th century, Sir Winston Churchill. Moreover, the Convention was not just his idea; in no small part, it was British legal experts who drafted the convention. Leaving it means turning your back on your own creation. But Patrick Stewart explains that better, in a Pythonesque way:



As I said before, all European states are member of the Council. Even Lukashenko would be glad to join, if they'd only let him. Every European country has, at one time or another, been reprimanded by the ECHR for infringement of human rights, but no politician has ever openly questioned membership of the Council or adherence to the verdicts of the ECHR, not even the Euroskeptics and bigots like Farage, Wilders, or Le Pen; except for the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Seventy years ago, its leader commanded the defence of your country and liberation of mine from evil tyranny, and proudly announced the creation of the Council of Europe as a safeguard for shared European, democratic values:



But the last years, all we hear from its leaders - first from Cameron, now from May - is that they want to leave the ECHR. Let May, if she has the guts, go on that same balcony in Strasbourg and explain why she wants to turn her back on Sir Winston's ideas and hope of shared European values of democracy and the rule of law.

QFT! And for showing that shameful Soba!