[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Chicago 25 Or 6 To 4 - Steely_D - May 20, 2022 - 2:42pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - May 20, 2022 - 2:36pm
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - May 20, 2022 - 1:47pm
 
songs for drella - TheKing2 - May 20, 2022 - 1:03pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - May 20, 2022 - 10:51am
 
Wordle - daily game - islander - May 20, 2022 - 7:39am
 
Reccomended System or Powered Speakers - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 20, 2022 - 7:04am
 
What is the meaning of this? - miamizsun - May 20, 2022 - 6:53am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - miamizsun - May 20, 2022 - 6:50am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - May 20, 2022 - 6:48am
 
Counting with Pictures - darkblue - May 20, 2022 - 6:21am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - May 20, 2022 - 6:05am
 
Derplahoma! - sunybuny - May 20, 2022 - 5:41am
 
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum - miamizsun - May 20, 2022 - 5:16am
 
The Obituary Page - thisbody - May 19, 2022 - 10:01pm
 
Name My Band - haresfur - May 19, 2022 - 8:10pm
 
Today, I learned... - Bill_J - May 19, 2022 - 6:56pm
 
songs that ROCK! - Red_Dragon - May 19, 2022 - 5:10pm
 
Online Radio Platforms - Steely_D - May 19, 2022 - 4:03pm
 
Brag about your stereo - miamizsun - May 19, 2022 - 3:16pm
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - islander - May 19, 2022 - 3:00pm
 
COVID-19 - Red_Dragon - May 19, 2022 - 1:50pm
 
Testing your Metal? - oldviolin - May 19, 2022 - 12:11pm
 
Ukraine - NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 19, 2022 - 10:37am
 
Help Finding A Song - nightdrive - May 19, 2022 - 10:19am
 
Lyrics - oldviolin - May 19, 2022 - 8:17am
 
What Did You Do Today? - miamizsun - May 19, 2022 - 4:08am
 
New Song Submissions system - danielh - May 19, 2022 - 2:09am
 
What Makes You Sad? - Coaxial - May 18, 2022 - 6:42pm
 
NASA & other news from space - GeneP59 - May 18, 2022 - 4:37pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - May 18, 2022 - 4:12pm
 
Guided Meditation by Bill - thisbody - May 18, 2022 - 2:45pm
 
January 20th, 2005 ~ Boycott And Meditation Day - thisbody - May 18, 2022 - 2:34pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - May 18, 2022 - 1:55pm
 
Economix - thisbody - May 18, 2022 - 1:48pm
 
Japan - Red_Dragon - May 18, 2022 - 10:58am
 
Race in America - Red_Dragon - May 18, 2022 - 7:36am
 
North Korea - Red_Dragon - May 17, 2022 - 9:07pm
 
Live Music - thisbody - May 17, 2022 - 1:50pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 17, 2022 - 11:24am
 
"2000 Mules" movie purports to prove 2020 election was st... - rgio - May 17, 2022 - 7:02am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - May 16, 2022 - 8:44pm
 
Buddy's Haven - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 6:31pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 6:18pm
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - May 16, 2022 - 4:42pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - May 16, 2022 - 4:24pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 3:24pm
 
New Music - miamizsun - May 16, 2022 - 12:37pm
 
• • • Clownstock • • •  - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 10:17am
 
What the hell OV? - miamizsun - May 16, 2022 - 9:40am
 
Supreme Court Rulings - Red_Dragon - May 16, 2022 - 9:33am
 
Outstanding Covers - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 8:35am
 
Watching My Mind Slip Away... - oldviolin - May 16, 2022 - 6:05am
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - Alchemist - May 15, 2022 - 10:12pm
 
TuneIn difficulties - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2022 - 7:02pm
 
Terrorist Watch! - Steely_D - May 15, 2022 - 5:17pm
 
Climate Change - Red_Dragon - May 15, 2022 - 1:31pm
 
Spain - Red_Dragon - May 15, 2022 - 11:04am
 
Get Your Godcast! - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 4:52pm
 
TV shows you watch - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 4:03pm
 
Republican Party - rgio - May 14, 2022 - 3:15pm
 
The Abortion Wars - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 2:20pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 2:08pm
 
Finland - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 11:28am
 
CRAZY Flooding Video! - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 7:35am
 
Bluesound MQA stream not working for me - Juancastilo - May 14, 2022 - 6:48am
 
Australia has Disappeared - Red_Dragon - May 14, 2022 - 6:07am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Antigone - May 13, 2022 - 5:25pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - GeneP59 - May 13, 2022 - 7:15am
 
Women in the World - miamizsun - May 13, 2022 - 6:21am
 
2020 Elections - Red_Dragon - May 12, 2022 - 12:34pm
 
George Carlin - GeneP59 - May 12, 2022 - 7:35am
 
Stuff I've Said Out Loud - GeneP59 - May 12, 2022 - 7:25am
 
Flower Pictures - Proclivities - May 12, 2022 - 6:29am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - May 12, 2022 - 5:47am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 988, 989, 990 ... 998, 999, 1000  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 14, 2016 - 3:14pm

 rotekz wrote:
The part you quoted was not from the conclusion section and cannot be described as the conclusion of the report. Also 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.
 
You're right, it was from patterns and intentions, just before the conclusion. I didn't say they preferred Tory, merely that the Tories won and that migrants were moving away from Labour. Indecisiveness, along with the rest of the electorate, would have to mean less loyalty to Labour on their part, no?
rotekz

rotekz Avatar



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

R_P Avatar



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

rotekz Avatar



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.{#Arrowu}
 
They were screenshots of the report that Richard himself linked in the first place. Read it.
rotekz

rotekz Avatar



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

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


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.{#Arrowu}

R_P

R_P Avatar



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

rotekz Avatar



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. {#Wink}.

 
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

R_P Avatar



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. {#Wink}
rotekz

rotekz Avatar



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

rotekz Avatar



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

R_P Avatar



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

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


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

rotekz Avatar



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/83

Was 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

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 14, 2016 - 1:06pm

 rotekz wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11585886/Better-Labour-meetings-are-segregated-than-men-only-says-Harriet-Harman.html

Here is a picture of a Labour party rally in Birmingham last year.  What are the two things that jump out at you?



Not only is the audience 99% muslim but they are gender segregated as well. In the UK!

Labour has the migrant vote sown up.
 
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

Steely_D Avatar

Location: Biscayne Bay
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 14, 2016 - 12:46pm

 kurtster wrote:




 
and DAT'S the name of dat tune!
 
bokey

bokey Avatar

Gender: Male


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

Prodigal_SOB Avatar

Location: Back Home Again in Indiana
Gender: Male


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

rotekz Avatar



Posted: Jan 14, 2016 - 12:27pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11585886/Better-Labour-meetings-are-segregated-than-men-only-says-Harriet-Harman.html

Here is a picture of a Labour party rally in Birmingham last year.  What are the two things that jump out at you?



Not only is the audience 99% muslim but they are gender segregated as well. In the UK!

Labour has the migrant vote sown up.
R_P

R_P Avatar



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.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 988, 989, 990 ... 998, 999, 1000  Next