What's the first concert you ever went to?
- oppositelock - Apr 1, 2023 - 1:27pm
Canada
- R_P - Apr 1, 2023 - 1:17pm
Automotive Lust
- R_P - Apr 1, 2023 - 12:47pm
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Apr 1, 2023 - 12:22pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- Steve - Apr 1, 2023 - 12:20pm
New Zealand
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 1, 2023 - 12:15pm
March 2023 Photo Theme - Bokeh
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 1, 2023 - 12:02pm
Trump
- Steely_D - Apr 1, 2023 - 11:51am
April Fool's Day
- ScottN - Apr 1, 2023 - 11:09am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 1, 2023 - 10:23am
The Obituary Page
- GeneP59 - Apr 1, 2023 - 9:07am
Wordle - daily game
- maryte - Apr 1, 2023 - 9:01am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 1, 2023 - 8:02am
Counting with Pictures
- ScottN - Apr 1, 2023 - 7:31am
::odd but intriguing::
- thisbody - Mar 31, 2023 - 10:34pm
Stupid Questions (and Answers)
- Bill_J - Mar 31, 2023 - 6:38pm
Fox Spews
- Steely_D - Mar 31, 2023 - 5:26pm
Guns
- Steely_D - Mar 31, 2023 - 4:45pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- oldviolin - Mar 31, 2023 - 3:21pm
Name My Band
- oldviolin - Mar 31, 2023 - 1:47pm
Wildlife Cams
- Beez - Mar 31, 2023 - 10:23am
Things You Thought Today
- oldviolin - Mar 31, 2023 - 10:20am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Mar 31, 2023 - 10:04am
Joe Biden
- Beaker - Mar 31, 2023 - 9:03am
Surfing!
- Proclivities - Mar 31, 2023 - 7:53am
RightWingNutZ
- Steely_D - Mar 31, 2023 - 7:44am
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Mar 31, 2023 - 7:07am
Mixtape Culture Club
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 31, 2023 - 6:04am
Graphic designers, ho's!
- BlueHeronDruid - Mar 30, 2023 - 7:20pm
Top Rated Music
- Zuzet - Mar 30, 2023 - 4:25pm
do you Twitter?
- Bill_J - Mar 30, 2023 - 2:42pm
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- Proclivities - Mar 30, 2023 - 1:49pm
Two sexes or ? Gender as a non-binary concept
- R_P - Mar 30, 2023 - 12:46pm
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone
- oldviolin - Mar 30, 2023 - 12:35pm
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- Tizmself - Mar 30, 2023 - 12:17pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- William - Mar 30, 2023 - 11:58am
Twitter's finest moment
- R_P - Mar 30, 2023 - 11:35am
Apk Installation?
- thisbody - Mar 30, 2023 - 9:16am
Google Assistant wont activate Radio Paradise
- ScottFromWyoming - Mar 30, 2023 - 9:14am
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- ColdMiser - Mar 30, 2023 - 7:29am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Mar 29, 2023 - 11:15pm
Republican Party
- Red_Dragon - Mar 29, 2023 - 4:35pm
Economix
- R_P - Mar 29, 2023 - 3:37pm
What are you doing RIGHT NOW?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 29, 2023 - 2:30pm
Water Wars
- R_P - Mar 29, 2023 - 1:28pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Mar 29, 2023 - 12:48pm
Florida
- rgio - Mar 29, 2023 - 5:40am
Make me a stereo system! (poof!!)
- kurtster - Mar 29, 2023 - 12:40am
New RP Website! (2022)
- thisbody - Mar 28, 2023 - 2:58pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- thisbody - Mar 28, 2023 - 2:32pm
*ATTENTION*: Security Warning
- thisbody - Mar 28, 2023 - 12:49pm
Ukraine
- VV - Mar 28, 2023 - 12:40pm
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- thisbody - Mar 28, 2023 - 12:06pm
Elvis Costello's next tour dates
- Steely_D - Mar 28, 2023 - 9:39am
Out the window
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2023 - 8:11am
Baseball, anyone?
- geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2023 - 7:52am
Kids say the funniest things
- Beez - Mar 28, 2023 - 7:20am
Artist Request
- propsforbuddha - Mar 27, 2023 - 7:04pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - Mar 27, 2023 - 11:03am
ANSWERS
- oldviolin - Mar 27, 2023 - 10:53am
Searching for title
- kurtster - Mar 27, 2023 - 9:42am
Half the streams are down
- jarro - Mar 27, 2023 - 8:41am
Immigration
- miamizsun - Mar 27, 2023 - 8:33am
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Beez - Mar 27, 2023 - 6:48am
Live Music
- j.enoksson - Mar 27, 2023 - 4:19am
Media Matters
- thisbody - Mar 26, 2023 - 4:29pm
Russia
- thisbody - Mar 26, 2023 - 3:46pm
More reggae, less Marley please
- thisbody - Mar 26, 2023 - 12:54pm
BRING OUT YOUR DEAD
- oldviolin - Mar 25, 2023 - 10:10pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Isabeau - Mar 25, 2023 - 6:38pm
Military Matters
- R_P - Mar 25, 2023 - 3:01pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - Mar 25, 2023 - 2:10pm
Outstanding Covers
- oldviolin - Mar 25, 2023 - 10:34am
WOW, UK Numbers?
- hs6666 - Mar 25, 2023 - 12:59am
What Did You Do Today?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2023 - 10:14pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Trump
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 1042, 1043, 1044 ... 1052, 1053, 1054 Next |
rotekz


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 3:09pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote: No, I already pointed out that the report reached a different conclusion then you did. I did not and would not say they no longer vote for Labour. The majority probably still does, but the report, once again, makes the case that the trend is away from Labour. The tables (as well as the list of minority MPs) already showed there is some (limited) variety.
Well, the BBC does make up stuff on occasion, but that's not really relevant here.
The part you quoted was not from the conclusion section and cannot be described as the conclusion of the report. Also the crucial part of your quoted section is as follows: There is no evidence that BAME support is shifting decisively in the direction of a different political party. Rather, many BAME voters are now as unsure about which way to vote as the rest of the electorate. It is a prediction of INDECISIVENESS and nothing more. There is no evidence or data to show that migrants now prefer to vote Tory.
|
|
R_P


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 2:52pm |
|
rotekz wrote:The first two sets of data were from the report that YOU linked. Are you trying to say your report is no good? The BBC report used 2010 election data. Do you accuse the BBC of making stuff up? The fourth set of data came from the electoral commission after the 2005 election. Again are you trying to say they got it wrong? This smacks of desperation.
Now. Produce 2015 data that shows migrants no longer vote Labour. Until you do the figures that we have are those of the 2005 and 2010 general election that show migrants overwhelmingly voting for Labour. If you are going to say they no longer do you have to back it up with figures that show it. No, I already pointed out that the report reached a different conclusion then you did. I did not and would not say they no longer vote for Labour. The majority probably still does, but the report, once again, makes the case that the trend is away from Labour. The tables (as well as the list of minority MPs) already showed there is some (limited) variety. Well, the BBC does make up stuff on occasion, but that's not really relevant here.
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 2:44pm |
|
aflanigan wrote:So you consider a single photo which may well have been photoshopped as comprehensive data to establish the voting habits of a certain class of people? EDIT: Richard caught this as well.  They were screenshots of the report that Richard himself linked in the first place. Read it.
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 2:44pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote: I might have missed it, but what was your (cold) hard data? Surely not the article by "Migrant Watch"? Or, for that matter, the tables from the report that conclude that there is a trend away from Labour among migrants?
The main winners in the elections were UKIP (like Trump, not likely to be supported by migrants) and the SNP. Big losers: LibDems, and Labour in Scotland (likely due to the SNP).
Until we have data for 2015, your air is as hot as mine.
The first two sets of data were from the report that YOU linked. Are you trying to say your report is no good? The BBC report used 2010 election data. Do you accuse the BBC of making stuff up? The fourth set of data came from the electoral commission after the 2005 election. Again are you trying to say they got it wrong? This smacks of desperation. Now. Produce 2015 data that shows migrants no longer vote Labour. Until you do the figures that we have are those of the 2005 and 2010 general election that show migrants overwhelmingly voting for Labour. If you are going to say they no longer do you have to back it up with figures that show it.
|
|
aflanigan

Location: At Sea Gender:  
|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 2:31pm |
|
rotekz wrote: I am the only person using actual data. So you consider a single photo which may well have been photoshopped as comprehensive data to establish the voting habits of a certain class of people? EDIT: Richard caught this as well.
|
|
R_P


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 2:28pm |
|
rotekz wrote:I am the only person using actual data. You are talking about a theoretical trend for indecisiveness. It amounts to nothing whilst all the voting data shows overwhelming support for Labour. You have nothing to show that migrants changed their previous propensity to vote Labour. Produce voting figures to show migrants no longer favour Labour. I might have missed it, but what was your (cold) hard data? Surely not the article by "Migrant Watch"? Or, for that matter, the tables from the report that conclude that there is a trend away from Labour among migrants? The main winners in the elections were UKIP (like Trump, not likely to be supported by migrants) and the SNP. Big losers: LibDems, and Labour in Scotland (likely due to the SNP). Until we have data for 2015, your air is as hot as mine.
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 2:17pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote:The report already showed the trend based on a study up to 2015 (you would need to look at the cited study). I don't know if there's concrete data for 2015 post-election w.r.t. minorities/migrants. More data will likely not convince you anyway. And that's based on the trend of your previous posts.  . I am the only person using actual data. You are talking about a theoretical trend for indecisiveness. It amounts to nothing whilst all the voting data shows overwhelming support for Labour. You have nothing to show that migrants changed their previous propensity to vote Labour. Produce voting figures to show migrants no longer favour Labour.
|
|
R_P


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 2:10pm |
|
rotekz wrote:Please provide figures that show migrants no longer overwhelmingly vote Labour. Actual data. Until you do it's all hot air.
This is a presumption and is not followed up with any data. Hard data is needed. All previous data shows overwhelming migrant support for Labour. The report already showed the trend based on a study up to 2015 (you would need to look at the cited study). I don't know if there's concrete data for 2015 post-election w.r.t. minorities/migrants. More data will likely not convince you anyway. And that's based on the trend of your previous posts.
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 2:07pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote:There is no evidence that BAME support is shifting decisively in the direction of a different political party. Rather, many BAME voters are now as unsure about which way to vote as the rest of the electorate. .............................................................
And you ended up with Tories again... This is a presumption and is not followed up with any data. All data produced so far shows overwhelming migrant support for Labour. Saying they were unsure who to vote for before the 2015 election does not in any way mean they were going to vote Conservative.
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 1:58pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote: rotekz wrote:Was Mass Immigration a Conspiracy?
Election 2015: Migrant voters 'could be decisive' The first article talks about what happened before 2005 (in conspiratorial terms no less). That was addressed in the earlier report. A different trend with regards to voting has been apparent. It's no secret that migrants were and are allowed to migrate to European countries. It's been happening since the 60s. It was, and still is, relatively cheap labour. That's fine by most when the economy is doing well (and certain jobs, often low-paid, can't be filled easily). It then becomes a problem when this is no longer the case. The second article said their vote might be decisive, and it turned out to be either false (if you counted on them to vote Labour) or true (if they decided to vote something else esp. Tory). As mentioned earlier, the Tories won anyway (and if I remember correctly most polls got it wrong). Please provide figures that show migrants no longer overwhelmingly vote Labour. Actual data. Until you do it's all hot air.
|
|
R_P


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 1:54pm |
|
rotekz wrote:Was Mass Immigration a Conspiracy?
Election 2015: Migrant voters 'could be decisive' The first article talks about what happened before 2005 (in conspiratorial terms no less). That was addressed in the earlier report. A different trend with regards to voting has been apparent. It's no secret that migrants were and are allowed to migrate to European countries. It's been happening since the 60s. It was, and still is, relatively cheap labour. That's fine by most when the economy is doing well (and certain jobs, often low-paid, can't be filled easily). It then becomes a problem when this is no longer the case. The second article said their vote might be decisive, and it turned out to be either false (if you counted on them to vote Labour) or true (if they decided to vote something else esp. Tory). As mentioned earlier, the Tories won anyway (and if I remember correctly most polls got it wrong).
|
|
aflanigan

Location: At Sea Gender:  
|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 1:33pm |
|
kurtster wrote: I break the law and get caught, I will have to be held accountable. Simple enough.
Get caught being here illegally, then I expect the same for that person as well.
Its so simple really ... don't get caught. Cuz if you do ...
So I take it that you will not mind us all referring to you as an illegal American?
|
|
rotekz


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 1:33pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote:It mentions it is one particular district in Birmingham, and that is was organized by a young Muslim female councillor (along with another councillor). We can't know if they are all (recent) migrants either. However, despite that you can still come up with a massive generalization, despite a report that claims a different trend? A list of ethnic political representatives shows more variety as well. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressArticle/83Was Mass Immigration a Conspiracy?Mass immigration is an entirely different matter. The question now is how did it happen and what can be done about it. Was it all a Labour conspiracy? Was it sheer incompetence in government? Or was it wholesale retreat in front of the race relations lobby? Landmark The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away. Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’. He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’. That seemed, even to him, a manoeuvre too far. The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’ It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn’t cotton on, there were votes in it. Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31062699
Election 2015: Migrant voters 'could be decisive'The report highlighted a challenge for the Conservatives, particularly over migrant voters. At the 2010 election, 16% of black and ethnic minority voters chose the Tories; 68% voted Labour. Generations of migrants had formed an image of Labour as the party that "protects migrant and minority interests, in contrast to the Conservatives", the study said. Conservative chairman Grant Shapps acknowledged there was a "big challenge" ahead for his party, but stressed "things were changing". "I am the first to accept that people don't necessarily move to this country and immediately think of voting Conservative.
|
|
R_P


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 1:06pm |
|
rotekz wrote: It mentions it is one particular district in Birmingham, and that is was organized by a young Muslim female councillor (along with another councillor). We can't know if they are all (recent) migrants either. However, despite that you can still come up with a massive generalization, despite a report that claims a different trend? A list of ethnic political representatives shows more variety as well.
|
|
Steely_D

Location: Biscayne Bay Gender:  
|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 12:46pm |
|
kurtster wrote: and DAT'S the name of dat tune!
|
|
bokey

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 12:45pm |
|
Prodigal_SOB wrote: 22st?
I used to have a friend who according to the signage lived on E. 2th (tooth?) St.
East Saint Louis Toothaloo?
|
|
Prodigal_SOB

Location: Back Home Again in Indiana Gender:  
|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 12:32pm |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote: For more information please reread.
Well after that the font gets too difficult for us old timers to read. It is still January though isn't it? I know there's no baseball yet.
|
|
rotekz


|
|
R_P


|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 12:22pm |
|
rotekz wrote: RichardPrins wrote:That's but one partial view (and from 2010).
How about migrant heavy constituencies outside London then? Even worse - 1/20 voted Tory. See my previous answer. It still applies regardless of individual snapshots. There are several of those views in the report and it's summed up at the end, which was used in my first post that referenced this report. From 2005 on, the overall trend is changing, i.e. away from Labour.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming

Location: Powell Gender:  
|
Posted:
Jan 14, 2016 - 12:21pm |
|
Prodigal_SOB wrote: 22st?
I used to have a friend who according to the signage lived on E. 2th (tooth?) St.
For more information please reread.
|
|
|