The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
You don't perhaps foresee a small problem when those lib dems that still remain wheel out their bar charts and tell labour voters that only the lib dems can keep the tories out of power?
I would advise against Clegg standing next to Cameron when delivering that message for a start.
In LD/Tory battlegrounds only the LDs can keep the Tories out of power. It's a statement of fact.
@SkyNewsBreak: High Court rules alleged victim of Councillor and MP Mike Hancock can see full report into his behaviour conducted for Portsmouth Council
"It’s been repeated often enough on PB that an essential part of Labour’s polling position is based on the very large proportion of 2010 LD voters who’ve now switched to Labour. If this hadn’t happened or starts to slip away then EdM’s dreams of becoming PM are in trouble."
And as we all know by now just because it's repeated on PB doesn't make it true. ...
So to cut a long story short, no, not everything hinges on the 2010 lib dems no matter how much that would please Clegg and his amusing spinners. They theoretically could make a big difference but right now and since late 2010 it looks far more like it needs a small atom bomb to shift the lib dems meaningfully from their flatlining at around 10%.
Absolutely right Mick, as I've tried to argue on here before. At the time of the fallout from the Omnishambles budget, Con-Lab switchers contributed more to the Labour lead than LibDem-Lab switchers.
There has been more movement then is generally accepted in support between the two largest parties, and some of those 2010 Tories currently declaring their vote for UKIP may well end up voting for the main opposition party at the GE in 2015.
At the moment, the new swing between Con and Lab is virtually nil, going by the last YouGov data I saw (earlier this week): it was 5% one way and 6% the other.
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
In Tory/LD Eastleigh, Labour voters chose UKIP. In Tory/LD Folkstone, they appear to choose Labour.
The LDs won in Eastleigh because they held on to enough of their 2010 voters, many of whom were and are members of the ATP. Labour 2010 voters in places where the LDs have a sitting MP and the main challenger is a Tory are not really part of the equation for the purposes of the point Mike is making.
I think you are right aIf you have some organisation or presence in a ward, it's easy. But they must be on the electoral roll, and they mustn't have nominated anyone else. For example you can ask deliverers or known supporters. I've always done my nomination forms by asking people in a bar where I know everyone is local and on the electoral roll. If not, you can either knock on doors and hope to find supporters / people who like you feel there should be a choice but that could take a long time. Far smarter to e.g. stand outside a local shop in the ward and ask people as they come in (with a copy of the electoral roll in hand, just to check.) To do that in a stack of wards where you don't have a presence sounds like hard work when you don't have enough candidates to go round though.
Yes, when I lived in the UK and stood for borough and county I got all of mine in the (same) pub each time. Done in an afternoon, checked against the roll that evening; job jobbed.
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
You don't perhaps foresee a small problem when those lib dems that still remain wheel out their bar charts and tell labour voters that only the lib dems can keep the tories out of power?
I would advise against Clegg standing next to Cameron when delivering that message for a start.
In LD/Tory battlegrounds only the LDs can keep the Tories out of power. It's a statement of fact.
Far from keeping them from power the LDs put the Tories into power under Clegg in 2010. That's a statement of fact.
If only he had you to help spin those stats more successfully, is that it?
Oh come on Mick the answer to that one's easy.
The tories weren't given credit for the late 90s boom because they were seen as the architects of the early 90s bust - remember the EMS crisis and dear old Norman Lamont?
It's much easier to claim the credit this time around - and much more difficult for Ed 13 years in government Miliband to criticise.
Easy? What planet do you hail from. Even Osbrowne must know that having the likes of him demanding credit from the voters for any (as yet) theoretical feel good factor would be one of his most 'inspired' master strategies to date. (and there is plenty to choose from)
It's not going to BE about giving credit. It's going to be "Don't let labour ruin it again" 24/7 set to footage of the economic crash played out in slow motion with Darling and Brown in starring roles.
The reason a feel-good factor matters is that for that attack to work most effectively the voter can't just turn straight round and ask "Don't let Labour ruin what again?" Which they will if they don't feel like anything has improved sufficiently or there is not the prospect of it doing so with any great success under Osbrowne.
If there is no real feel-good factor it also means that little Ed's "cost of living crisis" is going to resonate that much more with voters, even if he personally doesn't.
Nobody is going to win it throwing economic stats about. It's all about trust.
Gosh. A MickP post I entirely agree with (nicknames aside).
Obviously in London you could probably get 3/4 wards at a time standing outside a strategically located Tube station on the ward boundaries - assuming you're quick enough to be able to check multiple Electoral Rolls at once.
In London you are doing well to get tube commuters to accept a leaflet as they exit the station. Try to engage them in conversation or wait while you check them against the electoral roll?! No chance!
I'd agree with that. I also expect you'd get stacks of people passing htrough who didn't live close. If I had to do this in the middle of London, I'd probably go and stand outside a doctor's surgery. People will have time and are highly likely to be local.
David Herdson - yes Ming's policy was for the Lisbon Treaty but the idea became party policy and is now law (if you can define a "significant transfer of powers") which Eurosceptics find surprisingly difficult to recall.
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
The "disasters" for UKIP keep coming, and the polling doesnt go down
The game has changed but you're still playing by the old rules
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
You don't perhaps foresee a small problem when those lib dems that still remain wheel out their bar charts and tell labour voters that only the lib dems can keep the tories out of power?
I would advise against Clegg standing next to Cameron when delivering that message for a start.
In LD/Tory battlegrounds only the LDs can keep the Tories out of power. It's a statement of fact.
Far from keeping them from power the LDs put the Tories into power under Clegg in 2010. That's a statement of fact.
It is and in those Tory/LD marginal the LD message will be relentless: think how bad it would have been if the Tories had governed alone; any vote but one for us makes that more likely.
Here's what you do to figure out VI. Look at an opinion poll.
Are you arguing that a booming economy doesn't electorally favour the party that presides over it?
If that's the case, why do politicians bother to appoint a chancellor.
Not at all. I'm saying that throwing economic stats about is utterly pointless since voters instinctively know whether they are better off or not. That's why it's called a feel good factor. Idiots spouting economic stats telling you to feel good is doomed to failure and risks a "you've never had it so good" backlash if they do it incessantly when the public disagrees.
What "you've never had it so good" backlash? At the election after Macmillan said that, the Tories won with their best performance in over 20 years.
Don't be so obtuse. I'm obviously talking about any party that tries to talk up the economy using Macmillan style soundbites and economic stats if the public strongly disagrees.
That will cause a backlash and whether you like it or not it is self-evidently why little Ed is pinning his hopes on the "cost of living crisis" continuing to make the headlines. It is a clear danger for the tories just as little Ed being an electoral liability come an election campaign is a clear danger for labour.
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
In the last local elections in Newcastle the Lib Dems did NOT get a hammering in Newcastle especially in the wards forming Newcastle North . Liverpool , you are correct .
Apologies - thought the LDs lost big in all the large northern cities
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
In Tory/LD Eastleigh, Labour voters chose UKIP. In Tory/LD Folkstone, they appear to choose Labour.
The LDs won in Eastleigh because they held on to enough of their 2010 voters, many of whom were and are members of the ATP. Labour 2010 voters in places where the LDs have a sitting MP and the main challenger is a Tory are not really part of the equation for the purposes of the point Mike is making.
The point _you_ were making is that Labour supporters would choose LD in LD/Tory marginals.
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
I think the LDs have a fair chance of hanging on in Bristol W where Labour are 2nd. Also heard suggestions on here Cambridge may stay yellow.
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
In Tory/LD Eastleigh, Labour voters chose UKIP. In Tory/LD Folkstone, they appear to choose Labour.
In Eastleigh 2010 Labour voters went 12 to LD 9 to UKIP in Ashcroft's poll and 3 to LD 2 to UKIP in Survation's Eastleigh poll
As the Labour vote share in Eastleigh barely shifted between 2010 and 2013, there must have been some movement the other way, if those polls are right?
Yep , there was movement in all directions if you look at the Ashcroft and Survation polls at the time .
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
The "disasters" for UKIP keep coming, and the polling doesnt go down
The game has changed but you're still playing by the old rules
I never said anything about a disaster. Still, feel free to address the point instead of repeating tired and fallacious mantras.
Personally I believe there is a chunk of the Labour vote that is primarily anti-Tory and will end up with the Lib Dems where the contest is LD v Tory. If it seems UKIP has a chance against the Tories, then it might end up with UKIP, but that is not going to be very many places at a GE.
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
You don't perhaps foresee a small problem when those lib dems that still remain wheel out their bar charts and tell labour voters that only the lib dems can keep the tories out of power?
I would advise against Clegg standing next to Cameron when delivering that message for a start.
In LD/Tory battlegrounds only the LDs can keep the Tories out of power. It's a statement of fact.
Far from keeping them from power the LDs put the Tories into power under Clegg in 2010. That's a statement of fact.
It is and in those Tory/LD marginal the LD message will be relentless: think how bad it would have been if the Tories had governed alone; any vote but one for us makes that more likely.
If it would have been that bad, why go into coalition? The Lib Dems could have stayed in opposition and brought down a Conservative minority government at a time of their own choosing.
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
You don't perhaps foresee a small problem when those lib dems that still remain wheel out their bar charts and tell labour voters that only the lib dems can keep the tories out of power?
I would advise against Clegg standing next to Cameron when delivering that message for a start.
In LD/Tory battlegrounds only the LDs can keep the Tories out of power. It's a statement of fact.
Far from keeping them from power the LDs put the Tories into power under Clegg in 2010. That's a statement of fact.
It is and in those Tory/LD marginal the LD message will be relentless: think how bad it would have been if the Tories had governed alone; any vote but one for us makes that more likely.
Yeah, not exactly a barnstorming message is it if you're being honest. "Imagine the tories were really nasty?" I don't think all that many labour voters will appreciate being told that from the party that helped the tories in power. If Clegg doesn't come up with a considerably better reason than that to vote for the lib dems then he's going to find out the hard way just how bad things can get.
You're making the same mistake the tories did with the kippers. The lib dems are not the only place to go and if you p**s off voters enough they will vote for someone else or just not vote at all, regardless of copious bar charts and being told 'who can win here'.
To those who hark back to 2010 to probe UKIP's fortune, you'd all be better looking at your crystal ball, for all the good it will do you. UKIPers are remaking the party from what it was just a few years ago - one might say that it's a brand new party.
I bet that Lib/Lab/Con members cannot say the same about changing their sorry heaps.
BTW have been moving out of a couple of my iffy stocks today.
Let's hope that as the prospect of a Labour government coming in and destroying the recovery looms ever larger in people's minds voting intention will shift enough to at least enable to coalition to keep going after 2015.
This has been a good government and is achieving a lot to clear up Labour's disastrous mismanagement of the country from 97-10. The coalition deserve's another go in 2015.
Personally I believe there is a chunk of the Labour vote that is primarily anti-Tory and will end up with the Lib Dems where the contest is LD v Tory. If it seems UKIP has a chance against the Tories, then it might end up with UKIP, but that is not going to be very many places at a GE.
Indeed. The Ashcroft polling found 16% of 2010 LAB voters in the LD-CON marginals ready to switch to LD to stop CON.
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
The "disasters" for UKIP keep coming, and the polling doesnt go down
The game has changed but you're still playing by the old rules
I never said anything about a disaster. Still, feel free to address the point instead of repeating tired and fallacious mantras.
Im not commenting on the details of the manifesto, just pointing out that the things that seem important to critics consistently arent to ukip supporters it seems
Here's what you do to figure out VI. Look at an opinion poll.
Are you arguing that a booming economy doesn't electorally favour the party that presides over it?
If that's the case, why do politicians bother to appoint a chancellor.
Not at all. I'm saying that throwing economic stats about is utterly pointless since voters instinctively know whether they are better off or not. That's why it's called a feel good factor. Idiots spouting economic stats telling you to feel good is doomed to failure and risks a "you've never had it so good" backlash if they do it incessantly when the public disagrees.
What "you've never had it so good" backlash? At the election after Macmillan said that, the Tories won with their best performance in over 20 years.
Don't be so obtuse. I'm obviously talking about any party that tries to talk up the economy using Macmillan style soundbites and economic stats if the public strongly disagrees.
That will cause a backlash and whether you like it or not it is self-evidently why little Ed is pinning his hopes on the "cost of living crisis" continuing to make the headlines. It is a clear danger for the tories just as little Ed being an electoral liability come an election campaign is a clear danger for labour.
Porky, Porky, Porky.
Statistics are not that frightening really and, if you know how to read them, they can be quite illuminating.
Now let's consider the Markit Index on House Price Expectations (referred to downthread), as good as any leading indicator of changes in consumer confidence levels in the economy, or, as you put it, "the feelgood factor".
This Index which is measured monthly both as a UK weighted average and as an average for each region comprising the UK , can be set out in a table to help readers to discern trends in changes of confidence.
Here is such a table from the latest Markit-Knight Frank report.
If you have difficulty interpretting the table, think of values below 49 as ground nuts and values of above 51 as acorns. 50-51 can be thought of as peanuts. Once you get the hang of it you will see just how useful "economic stats" can be in aiding an understanding of changes in consumer sentiment.
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
I think you are missing the point Mr. Isam was trying to make, Mr. J.. People are joining UKIP and even more are saying that they will vote for them regardless of whatever stories are run in the papers. The normal rules don't work and running the usual smear-type stories won't work. UKIP is touching a cord with ordinary people, people who are disenfranchised by the three party set-up, people who feel that nobody speaks for them.
I think you are right in that Farage lacks political polish and most of his fellows don't have any, but in a way that is part of their appeal - they are not seen as part of the system. As you say they are a "protest, popularist" party. But being popular is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it?
The key is not to think of LD/Lab switchers as positive supporters of either party. They are first and foremost anti-Tories. That will guide how they vote in 2015. Brown and the government he led were so toxic that they not only steered Labour to one of their worst vote shares in living memory, but also haemorrhaged the ATP vote. Seeing the Tories exercising power may well have revived it.
Some but not all. You're forgetting that in 2005 there were big Lab/LD swings in seats like Liverpool Wavertree, Newcastle N etc where the Tories have no chance of winning on the back of the Iraq war and Tuition fees. In the N, LDs were seen as Labour-lite and built up votes in Labour seats. At the last local elections in these cities they got a hammering.
That's because the choice was Labour or LD - and there was a chance to punish the LDs for betraying the ATP. We'll see lots more of that in 2015. I would not fancy the chances of many LDs in seats where Labour has a chance of winning. It's very different where the choice is Tory or LD.
You don't perhaps foresee a small problem when those lib dems that still remain wheel out their bar charts and tell labour voters that only the lib dems can keep the tories out of power?
I would advise against Clegg standing next to Cameron when delivering that message for a start.
In LD/Tory battlegrounds only the LDs can keep the Tories out of power. It's a statement of fact.
Far from keeping them from power the LDs put the Tories into power under Clegg in 2010. That's a statement of fact.
It is and in those Tory/LD marginal the LD message will be relentless: think how bad it would have been if the Tories had governed alone; any vote but one for us makes that more likely.
If it would have been that bad, why go into coalition? The Lib Dems could have stayed in opposition and brought down a Conservative minority government at a time of their own choosing.
They will argue - fairly in my view - that they did what they thought was best for the country. The LDs are not going to attract many new voters in 2015. They need to keep the ones they had in 2010. They have probably lost a load of them in places where Labour can win because the ATP has another realistic choice; where Labour can't win, they still have a chance.
Danny565 - Nobody in Scotland votes for SNP at westminster elections.
Obviously not literally true, but there is, I suspect, a great deal of tactical voting "to keep the Tories out", which favours Labour and (until now) LD under FPTP: the SNP is always going to be a minority at Westminster by definition, so in a sense an SNP MP can do relatively little en masse (though they can do some very potent qualitative things. e.g. lift the lid, with Plaid Cymru, on the Cash for Peerages scandal). That alone would explain much of the difference between Westminster and Scottish Pmt voting, as the SNP can become a majority party in Scotland, so a vote is not seen as wasted.
It's the tactical voting aspect which makes me think the SNP might do quite well at the next general election. Scots have tactical voting down to an art, explaining why the Conservatives always underperform in terms of seats in Scotland compared to their share of the vote -- and, I presume, the Lib Dems will now also be on the receiving end of such tactical voting. Isn't it possible that, in certain seats where Labour are too far back to have a chance, Labour voters will tactically vote SNP to get a Lib Dem out or to block a Tory?
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
The "disasters" for UKIP keep coming, and the polling doesnt go down
The game has changed but you're still playing by the old rules
I never said anything about a disaster. Still, feel free to address the point instead of repeating tired and fallacious mantras.
Im not commenting on the details of the manifesto, just pointing out that the things that seem important to critics consistently arent to ukip supporters it seems
There will be many forms of UKIP supporters: for instance the firm members, the non-member supporters, and the UKIP voters. You seem to be a very firm member. Don't take the other groups for granted - they have no ties and it is very easy for them to shift, as the big parties find to their cost.
Also remember that criticism is sometimes valid, and can even be helpful. Dismissing criticism can be dangerous when it conceals a truth.
@MickPork - I agree that the LDs are going to get hammered and that they will lose huge numbers of votes across the country. I just do not agree that they are going to get hammered uniformly. Where the Tories are their main challengers I believe they will do much better than they will elsewhere and will probably retain most, if not all, of their seats. Anti-Tory sentiment among those who possess it is a very, very powerful force.
Personally I believe there is a chunk of the Labour vote that is primarily anti-Tory and will end up with the Lib Dems where the contest is LD v Tory. If it seems UKIP has a chance against the Tories, then it might end up with UKIP, but that is not going to be very many places at a GE.
Indeed. The Ashcroft polling found 16% of 2010 LAB voters in the LD-CON marginals ready to switch to LD to stop CON.
Quite a knife edge decision and depends a lot on the particular Lib Dem/Tory in question I would say. There are certain LDs and Tories who I would definitely vote against.
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
I think you are missing the point Mr. Isam was trying to make, Mr. J.. People are joining UKIP and even more are saying that they will vote for them regardless of whatever stories are run in the papers. The normal rules don't work and running the usual smear-type stories won't work. UKIP is touching a cord with ordinary people, people who are disenfranchised by the three party set-up, people who feel that nobody speaks for them.
I think you are right in that Farage lacks political polish and most of his fellows don't have any, but in a way that is part of their appeal - they are not seen as part of the system. As you say they are a "protest, popularist" party. But being popular is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it?
Yes exactly
I think JosiasJessop is just aching for a fight with me as the last one was cut off by the mods
As for the main thread topic - in theory Labour voters might say they're willing to tactically vote Lib Dem to keep a Tory out, but in practice, I can't see how it's going to work. If Lib Dem MPs in those Tory/LibDem marginals campaign on a "you can't trust Labour with the economy", then that will infuriate Labour supporters and make them far less inclined to want to lend support to the Lib Dems. On the other hand, if the Lib Dems' campaign is based on a "mea culpa" and sees them disown their entire government record and slam the Tories, then that will risk alienating some of the socially-conservative voters in some of those affluent southern constituencies, who might then be responsive to a Tory scaremongering message that you can't trust the Lib Dems in case they let Labour get back in and ruin the economy. And at the same time, if the Lib Dems try to hedge their bets and not say anything positive or critical of either of the two main parties and not give any indication of which way they would lean in a hung parliament, then they'll come under fire from all sides for being disingenuous.
It just seems to me that trying to pacify all the disparate factions that most Lib Dem MPs' majorities are built on is going to be like herding cats, especially now that they will have less benefit of the doubt and people are going to want concrete answers about what they would do in a hung parliament situation.
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
The "disasters" for UKIP keep coming, and the polling doesnt go down
The game has changed but you're still playing by the old rules
I never said anything about a disaster. Still, feel free to address the point instead of repeating tired and fallacious mantras.
Im not commenting on the details of the manifesto, just pointing out that the things that seem important to critics consistently arent to ukip supporters it seems
There will be many forms of UKIP supporters: for instance the firm members, the non-member supporters, and the UKIP voters. You seem to be a very firm member. Don't take the other groups for granted - they have no ties and it is very easy for them to shift, as the big parties find to their cost.
Also remember that criticism is sometimes valid, and can even be helpful. Dismissing criticism can be dangerous when it conceals a truth.
I seem to be a very firm member??!! Haha is that from Carry on Dick or Finbar Saunders??! Fnar fnar
"It’s been repeated often enough on PB that an essential part of Labour’s polling position is based on the very large proportion of 2010 LD voters who’ve now switched to Labour. If this hadn’t happened or starts to slip away then EdM’s dreams of becoming PM are in trouble."
And as we all know by now just because it's repeated on PB doesn't make it true. ...
So to cut a long story short, no, not everything hinges on the 2010 lib dems no matter how much that would please Clegg and his amusing spinners. They theoretically could make a big difference but right now and since late 2010 it looks far more like it needs a small atom bomb to shift the lib dems meaningfully from their flatlining at around 10%.
Absolutely right Mick, as I've tried to argue on here before. At the time of the fallout from the Omnishambles budget, Con-Lab switchers contributed more to the Labour lead than LibDem-Lab switchers.
There has been more movement then is generally accepted in support between the two largest parties, and some of those 2010 Tories currently declaring their vote for UKIP may well end up voting for the main opposition party at the GE in 2015.
The big mistake comes from the very phrase "2010 lib dems". They no longer exist. To use the phrase implies that they are a still coherent mass of voters who can be predicted with complete accuracy and who are somehow always going to be on the verge of returning to the lib dem fold. They will not. That's over.
Even the most deluded Clegg spinner doesn't believe there is a hope in hell of the lib dems repeating their 2010 result so quite obviously that 2010 aggregate no longer applies. You can posit that a chunk of them will go back to the lib dems and the chances are some will. The question is always going to be how many and since not all of them will be from labour in the first place it's slightly tedious to base all electoral assumptions on that one small group.
To use "2010 lib dems" as a touchstone after the coalition is pretty arbitrary and meaningless now that we know so many voters are quite happy to forego previous party allegiance. Perhaps it would be far more helpful just to go back to the more accurate phrase "floating voter" since no party has a monopoly on where the voters go. While the idea that 2010 lib dems are the most important chunk of voters may well be a self-serving one for Clegg supporters and spinners, but the truth is it's actually a load of old nonsense.
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
I think you are missing the point Mr. Isam was trying to make, Mr. J.. People are joining UKIP and even more are saying that they will vote for them regardless of whatever stories are run in the papers. The normal rules don't work and running the usual smear-type stories won't work. UKIP is touching a cord with ordinary people, people who are disenfranchised by the three party set-up, people who feel that nobody speaks for them.
I think you are right in that Farage lacks political polish and most of his fellows don't have any, but in a way that is part of their appeal - they are not seen as part of the system. As you say they are a "protest, popularist" party. But being popular is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it?
Indeed. But that 'protest popularist' streak can only last so long. The bigger UKIP get, and the longer they exist, the more mainstream they become. Then people will go looking for the next non-mainstream party to protest with.
In addition, the bigger you get, the more serious you have to become. UKIP policies, aside from Europe, are a joke. The 2010 manifesto turn-around is an example. How can anyone trust anything they say in 2015 after Farage's comments? I mean, manifestos are always loose, but this is taking that to a whole new level.
I also disagree that UKIP are invulnerable to the normal media rules. They may be *less* vulnerable, but they're not invulnerable. It's very dangerous to think otherwise.
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
The "disasters" for UKIP keep coming, and the polling doesnt go down
The game has changed but you're still playing by the old rules
I never said anything about a disaster. Still, feel free to address the point instead of repeating tired and fallacious mantras.
Im not commenting on the details of the manifesto, just pointing out that the things that seem important to critics consistently arent to ukip supporters it seems
There will be many forms of UKIP supporters: for instance the firm members, the non-member supporters, and the UKIP voters. You seem to be a very firm member. Don't take the other groups for granted - they have no ties and it is very easy for them to shift, as the big parties find to their cost.
Also remember that criticism is sometimes valid, and can even be helpful. Dismissing criticism can be dangerous when it conceals a truth.
I seem to be a very firm member??!! Haha is that from Carry on Dick or Finbar Saunders??! Fnar fnar
Well, if you were it might change your views on gay marriage... ;-)
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
I think you are missing the point Mr. Isam was trying to make, Mr. J.. People are joining UKIP and even more are saying that they will vote for them regardless of whatever stories are run in the papers. The normal rules don't work and running the usual smear-type stories won't work. UKIP is touching a cord with ordinary people, people who are disenfranchised by the three party set-up, people who feel that nobody speaks for them.
I think you are right in that Farage lacks political polish and most of his fellows don't have any, but in a way that is part of their appeal - they are not seen as part of the system. As you say they are a "protest, popularist" party. But being popular is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it?
Yes exactly
I think JosiasJessop is just aching for a fight with me as the last one was cut off by the mods
I think the 2010 Lab=>LD switchers can stay/return.
Why not? They voted for a party that is now in govt, of course 10% of them are disappointed that the minority partner LDs didn't bring back Clause 4 but what is the alternative? As we have seen, Lab are as much a shower now as they were in 2010. What's changed? Nothing.
Their big idea (Plan A is wrong) turned out to be a duffer and they don't have anything else apart from to whinge from the sidelines, and on topics that Cam can easily (pace PMQs this week) bat back to them as being their own fault.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 2010 LD vote holds up because all anyone is in it for is power and they were successful.
Who said that what has been written in this article is the "Tory survival plan".
If it happened, it would obviously be good for Con but it is blindingly obvious it isn't going to happen.
But just because if it did happen it would be good for Con does not mean it is the "Tory plan" - as they would be idiotic to have a plan that has zero chance of working.
It's like saying your plan is to win the national lottery - it's a meaningless statement.
What the "Tory Survival plan" should consist of (and I imagine it does) is retaining as many votes as possible that it won in 2010 and hoping to pick up the odd additional one here and there. That's all they can do - it's a tough ask but if they were to do it they'll end up with a decent result.
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
I think you are missing the point Mr. Isam was trying to make, Mr. J.. People are joining UKIP and even more are saying that they will vote for them regardless of whatever stories are run in the papers. The normal rules don't work and running the usual smear-type stories won't work. UKIP is touching a cord with ordinary people, people who are disenfranchised by the three party set-up, people who feel that nobody speaks for them.
I think you are right in that Farage lacks political polish and most of his fellows don't have any, but in a way that is part of their appeal - they are not seen as part of the system. As you say they are a "protest, popularist" party. But being popular is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it?
Yes exactly
I think JosiasJessop is just aching for a fight with me as the last one was cut off by the mods
It was cut off because you showed your true colours.
I think arguing about why you were asked to stop arguing is probably covered under the original request to stop arguing.
I get the impression that UKIP have one policy …… the obvious …….. which their voters know about. Otherwise their leaders can come up with almost anything and the supporters will go along with it. Provided always that it involves getting out of the EU. Whatever the longterm cost.
The white van man image of UKIP is quite an illusory one.
UKIP is led by a Public School educated son of a stockbroker, who followed on from a Lord who was educated at Eton, and who spends his free time on his Scottish Estates.
Frankly it makes the Tory front bench seem a bit middle class!
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
Indeed. But that 'protest popularist' streak can only last so long. The bigger UKIP get, and the longer they exist, the more mainstream they become. Then people will go looking for the next non-mainstream party to protest with.
In addition, the bigger you get, the more serious you have to become. UKIP policies, aside from Europe, are a joke. The 2010 manifesto turn-around is an example. How can anyone trust anything they say in 2015 after Farage's comments? I mean, manifestos are always loose, but this is taking that to a whole new level.
I also disagree that UKIP are invulnerable to the normal media rules. They may be *less* vulnerable, but they're not invulnerable. It's very dangerous to think otherwise.
I get the impression that UKIP have one policy …… the obvious …….. which their voters know about. Otherwise their leaders can come up with almost anything and the supporters will go along with it. Provided always that it involves getting out of the EU. Whatever the longterm cost.
I get the impression that UKIP have one policy …… the obvious …….. which their voters know about. Otherwise their leaders can come up with almost anything and the supporters will go along with it. Provided always that it involves getting out of the EU. Whatever the longterm cost.
And that's why, despite poor old voters coming in for criticism, they will find themsleves unable to vote UKIP come GE2015. They need something more than a policy that would be unavailable from anything other than a Tory OM. Of course there will be some cut-off-your-noses types but in general the general public is quite sensible about these things.
And that's also why @MickPork's contention that the public will ignore the economic aggregates is similar to the What Have The Romans Done For Us sketch in Life of Brian.
@MickPork - I agree that the LDs are going to get hammered and that they will lose huge numbers of votes across the country. I just do not agree that they are going to get hammered uniformly. Where the Tories are their main challengers I believe they will do much better than they will elsewhere and will probably retain most, if not all, of their seats. Anti-Tory sentiment among those who possess it is a very, very powerful force.
I never said they would be hammered uniformly and just to be clear you will definitely get labour voters still tactically voting to keep the tories out. This all about quantity and it's becoming clear that whenever "2010 lib dems" come up it always ends up being a certain small(ish) percentage slice that is actually being referred to. I think your ATV probably has more merit than the "2010 lib dem" as a metric but in the end the danger is everyone divides and subdivides groups based on previous party allegiances that simply may not be there any more.
We should just face the facts. There are more floating voters than ever and tailoring everything to one subsection of the lib dems from 2010 simply doesn't make much sense. As important as lib dem labour switchers are in the end they are just another way of subdividing what is a very fluid and pretty unhappy bunch of voters just now.
I certainly wouldn't put much stall in tailoring every policy to pass a 'Clegg test' for these 2010 lib dems. If a party wants disillusioned voters then triangulating isn't always the best way.
JosiasJessop - "In addition, the bigger you get, the more serious you have to become"
That's the theory - and it plays well with the 2 party crowd. But compare the poll ratings of the LDs, who are co-governing in a sensible manner, with Ed M's and his silly "we're not tories - we'll freeze your gas bills" message.
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
I think you are missing the point Mr. Isam was trying to make, Mr. J.. People are joining UKIP and even more are saying that they will vote for them regardless of whatever stories are run in the papers. The normal rules don't work and running the usual smear-type stories won't work. UKIP is touching a cord with ordinary people, people who are disenfranchised by the three party set-up, people who feel that nobody speaks for them.
I think you are right in that Farage lacks political polish and most of his fellows don't have any, but in a way that is part of their appeal - they are not seen as part of the system. As you say they are a "protest, popularist" party. But being popular is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it?
Yes exactly
I think JosiasJessop is just aching for a fight with me as the last one was cut off by the mods
(Edited out: it's not worth it)
Haha my true colours! Yes I admit it I tell annoying pests to F off!
Who said that what has been written in this article is the "Tory survival plan".
If it happened, it would obviously be good for Con but it is blindingly obvious it isn't going to happen.
But just because if it did happen it would be good for Con does not mean it is the "Tory plan" - as they would be idiotic to have a plan that has zero chance of working.
It's like saying your plan is to win the national lottery - it's a meaningless statement.
What the "Tory Survival plan" should consist of (and I imagine it does) is retaining as many votes as possible that it won in 2010 and hoping to pick up the odd additional one here and there. That's all they can do - it's a tough ask but if they were to do it they'll end up with a decent result.
The current Con plan seems to be fix the economy in splendid fashion and hope the voters notice. Oh and ensure Ed survives until the GE.
JosiasJessop - "In addition, the bigger you get, the more serious you have to become"
That's the theory - and it plays well with the 2 party crowd. But compare the poll ratings of the LDs, who are co-governing in a sensible manner, with Ed M's and his silly "we're not tories - we'll freeze your gas bills" message.
A good point. But the pudding has not even been mixed, yet alone cooked or eaten. I don't expect things to be as they are now in May 2015.
As I remarked the other day, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing of events around 362AD, criticised Julian (emperor) for promising to fix prices of commodities as it was well-known doing so could lead to scarcity and great hardship.
Reminds me, I need to review that book in the near future.
The British Bankers' Association (BBA) has reported continued strength in mortgage approvals in December, albeit at a rate slightly below market expectations. This is a probable indication that the heady climbs of August to October 2013 have now plateaued, at least for the winter season.
It should also be noted that the BBA only accounts for about two thirds of all mortgage lending and BBA institutions have been slowly losing share in the post recession mortgage lending market, mainly due to bank recapitalisation and deleveraging requirements bearing down on core lending. The BoE statistics due later this month will give a broader picture of the market.
BBA Members approved 46,521 loans for house purchase worth £7.7bn last month, compared to the forecast of 47,300.
However it marked the highest monthly total since September 2007 and a 42% increase against December 2012.
Those inclined to fear a property market bubble should take note of the commentary on the figures by Matthew Pointon, Property Economist at Capital Economics:
"Banks show no signs that they are about to start engaging in the kind of lending practices that characterised the mid-2000s credit boom."
"The government is introducing new mortgage rules that aim to prevent any return to irresponsible lending. Lenders will also have to consider whether someone can afford their mortgage repayments now and when interest rates eventually start to rise."
"The tighter mortgage rules due in this April are likely to “keep a lid on lending”.
Continued strong performance on prudential terms and at reasonable rates of growth.
Surely it's the current leader's persona that is important. An English friend said that he thought Farage had a neutral accent - could be a taxi driver ... no?
The white van man image of UKIP is quite an illusory one.
UKIP is led by a Public School educated son of a stockbroker, who followed on from a Lord who was educated at Eton, and who spends his free time on his Scottish Estates.
Frankly it makes the Tory front bench seem a bit middle class!
Surely it's the current leader's persona that is important. An English friend said that he thought Farage had a neutral accent - could be a taxi driver ... no?
The white van man image of UKIP is quite an illusory one.
UKIP is led by a Public School educated son of a stockbroker, who followed on from a Lord who was educated at Eton, and who spends his free time on his Scottish Estates.
Frankly it makes the Tory front bench seem a bit middle class!
Non toffs aren't anti toff, that's socialist claptrap... Look at Boris
I understand the frustration of non kippers when their expectations of mud to stick repeatedly fail... As a better I constantly work out the odds and often the bet that is no value is the winner and I the loser... This is a bit like ukip becoming more popular when they should lose support according to the rules of politics
The British Bankers' Association (BBA) has reported continued strength in mortgage approvals in December, albeit at a rate slightly below market expectations. This is a probable indication that the heady climbs of August to October 2013 have now plateaued, at least for the winter season.
It should also be noted that the BBA only accounts for about two thirds of all mortgage lending and BBA institutions have been slowly losing share in the post recession mortgage lending market, mainly due to bank recapitalisation and deleveraging requirements bearing down on core lending. The BoE statistics due later this month will give a broader picture of the market.
BBA Members approved 46,521 loans for house purchase worth £7.7bn last month, compared to the forecast of 47,300.
However it marked the highest monthly total since September 2007 and a 42% increase against December 2012.
Those inclined to fear a property market bubble should take note of the commentary on the figures by Matthew Pointon, Property Economist at Capital Economics:
"Banks show no signs that they are about to start engaging in the kind of lending practices that characterised the mid-2000s credit boom."
"The government is introducing new mortgage rules that aim to prevent any return to irresponsible lending. Lenders will also have to consider whether someone can afford their mortgage repayments now and when interest rates eventually start to rise."
"The tighter mortgage rules due in this April are likely to “keep a lid on lending”.
Continued strong performance on prudential terms and at reasonable rates of growth.
St. George couldn't have asked for more.
Avery, you are beginning to look desperate. The by election results are getting to you !
The British Bankers' Association (BBA) has reported continued strength in mortgage approvals in December, albeit at a rate slightly below market expectations. This is a probable indication that the heady climbs of August to October 2013 have now plateaued, at least for the winter season.
It should also be noted that the BBA only accounts for about two thirds of all mortgage lending and BBA institutions have been slowly losing share in the post recession mortgage lending market, mainly due to bank recapitalisation and deleveraging requirements bearing down on core lending. The BoE statistics due later this month will give a broader picture of the market.
BBA Members approved 46,521 loans for house purchase worth £7.7bn last month, compared to the forecast of 47,300.
However it marked the highest monthly total since September 2007 and a 42% increase against December 2012.
Those inclined to fear a property market bubble should take note of the commentary on the figures by Matthew Pointon, Property Economist at Capital Economics:
"Banks show no signs that they are about to start engaging in the kind of lending practices that characterised the mid-2000s credit boom."
"The government is introducing new mortgage rules that aim to prevent any return to irresponsible lending. Lenders will also have to consider whether someone can afford their mortgage repayments now and when interest rates eventually start to rise."
"The tighter mortgage rules due in this April are likely to “keep a lid on lending”.
Continued strong performance on prudential terms and at reasonable rates of growth.
St. George couldn't have asked for more.
Right, so property. Not business. Not investment in productivity and job creation, but fuelling overpriced housing in London. And that's good news ?
Andrew Neil's always giving pints to Farage on TV - and that's the point, he may be posh but he certainly would't look or act out of place in a pub. Ed M doesn't even go to the pub. Anyway - I believe you're done the leader/drink test recently so no-one respond to this message.
I get the impression that UKIP have one policy …… the obvious …….. which their voters know about. Otherwise their leaders can come up with almost anything and the supporters will go along with it. Provided always that it involves getting out of the EU. Whatever the longterm cost.
I get the impression that UKIP have one policy …… the obvious …….. which their voters know about. Otherwise their leaders can come up with almost anything and the supporters will go along with it. Provided always that it involves getting out of the EU. Whatever the longterm cost.
And that's why, despite poor old voters coming in for criticism, they will find themsleves unable to vote UKIP come GE2015. They need something more than a policy that would be unavailable from anything other than a Tory OM. Of course there will be some cut-off-your-noses types but in general the general public is quite sensible about these things.
And that's also why @MickPork's contention that the public will ignore the economic aggregates is similar to the What Have The Romans Done For Us sketch in Life of Brian.
You seriously think all the kippers will just magically come back to the fold do you? No, they wont. Some will but right now nowhere near enough for Cammie's target of under 5% to be anything other than wishful thinking. Farage has to crash and burn spectacularly. A fall like the one after last May's elections won't do it since they fell to above what they were at the beginning of 2013.
As for this imaginary contention you just made up for me, try reading what I said instead of inventing straw men. I'm saying economic stats are meaningless to the ordinary voter not any economic recovery that they themselves feel. Which is precisely why is called a feel good factor and also why it's immune to inept economic spinning. Either the public will feel it or they won't. Simple as that.
"Of course there will be some cut-off-your-noses types but in general the general public is quite sensible about these things."
That is certainly the perceived wisdom. That as the election zooms, more attention will be paid to UKIP and their popularity will plummet, thus leaving the field to the serious players to whom the voters will return. In my view that will probably happen, but to what degree?
Mr. Jessop made the point that UKIP is a populist, protest party. My feel is that there are an awful lot of people who would love to protest about the way this country has been governed in recent years and a party representing their views would be popular.
There may well be some "swing-back" from UKIP to the main parties at the GE, but I think it will be less than many commentators imagine and a good deal less than the Conservatives need.
The white van man image of UKIP is quite an illusory one.
UKIP is led by a Public School educated son of a stockbroker, who followed on from a Lord who was educated at Eton, and who spends his free time on his Scottish Estates.
Frankly it makes the Tory front bench seem a bit middle class!
The anti UKIP people on here shouting that Farage has made himself look silly, the 2010 manifesto said this or that, its going to be a disaster for them etc should realise that they think almost everything that ukip do or say is silly, wrong headed, etc, including the things that have made them popular already
You are factoring in your dislike twice
...and nothing is going to shift Lib Dem tuition fees off the 2010 broken promise No1 spot
Not for the first time, you are letting your fandom for UKIP get in the way of common sense. We've had this discussion before, about UKIP's support for three high-speed lines in the 2010 manifesto. You got into all sort of sophistry about connecting London and Birmingham.
When Farage launches a manifesto in 2015, expect people to ask him if he's read it, and if he has, how much will still be UKIP policy in a year's time.
It's a question that will take some skill to manoeuvre. Farage may have that skill (although perhaps not); one thing is sure, many other UKIP politicians do not.
The problem is simple: UKIP is centred on giving Europe a good bashing. Aside from that, they don't really have a solid core of policies. They are a protest, popularist party.
Indeed. But that 'protest popularist' streak can only last so long. The bigger UKIP get, and the longer they exist, the more mainstream they become. Then people will go looking for the next non-mainstream party to protest with.
In addition, the bigger you get, the more serious you have to become. UKIP policies, aside from Europe, are a joke. The 2010 manifesto turn-around is an example. How can anyone trust anything they say in 2015 after Farage's comments? I mean, manifestos are always loose, but this is taking that to a whole new level.
I also disagree that UKIP are invulnerable to the normal media rules. They may be *less* vulnerable, but they're not invulnerable. It's very dangerous to think otherwise.
Danny565 - Nobody in Scotland votes for SNP at westminster elections.
Obviously not literally true, but there is, I suspect, a great deal of tactical voting "to keep the Tories out", which favours Labour and (until now) LD under FPTP: the SNP is always going to be a minority at Westminster by definition, so in a sense an SNP MP can do relatively little en masse (though they can do some very potent qualitative things. e.g. lift the lid, with Plaid Cymru, on the Cash for Peerages scandal). That alone would explain much of the difference between Westminster and Scottish Pmt voting, as the SNP can become a majority party in Scotland, so a vote is not seen as wasted.
It's the tactical voting aspect which makes me think the SNP might do quite well at the next general election. Scots have tactical voting down to an art, explaining why the Conservatives always underperform in terms of seats in Scotland compared to their share of the vote -- and, I presume, the Lib Dems will now also be on the receiving end of such tactical voting. Isn't it possible that, in certain seats where Labour are too far back to have a chance, Labour voters will tactically vote SNP to get a Lib Dem out or to block a Tory?
That's a thought [I assume you mean Westminster not a Scottish GE). There is also the factor that the SNP are showing themselves to be, if not the natural party of government for Scotland, then at least one of the two natural parties - and the more efficient one at running the country e.g. in terms of using their Barnett allowance (in contrast to Labour who often failed to spend it all and had to return some of it to London). The question is then how much this factor already applied in the last Westminster GE and how much it is increased or otherwise e.g. by a second SNP term in government.
One obvious new factor is if the voters are teed off about LD hugging the Tories in the indy No campaign as well as in the Coalition.
However, the above also applies to Labour - which means that they are less likely to vote Labour t the extent that that applies. Likewise if the current Labour leader in Scotland, Ms Lamont, goes on much more on about means testing for universal benefits such as prescriptions and bus fares for the old even when those are popular and actually quite efficient fiscally and administratively. (I know this is a Westminster election we are talking about - but insofar as they are London Labour HQ policies to appeal to the Home Counties ...).
Some recent polling has shown SNP and Labour Wesminster VIs to be very close, though I believe the SNP still need a feaw percent margin over Labour to get the same seats. Too early to say yet anyway, especially as the referendum will have its impact.
"Of course there will be some cut-off-your-noses types but in general the general public is quite sensible about these things."
That is certainly the perceived wisdom. That as the election zooms, more attention will be paid to UKIP and their popularity will plummet, thus leaving the field to the serious players to whom the voters will return. In my view that will probably happen, but to what degree?
Mr. Jessop made the point that UKIP is a populist, protest party. My feel is that there are an awful lot of people who would love to protest about the way this country has been governed in recent years and a party representing their views would be popular.
There may well be some "swing-back" from UKIP to the main parties at the GE, but I think it will be less than many commentators imagine and a good deal less than the Conservatives need.
That's part of Cameron's problem, he's taken a big chunk of his vote for granted and got badly caught out.
Even contemplating messing with gun laws is just idiotic. All it would take is one massive shooting in the US for it to be derailed.
Absolutely idiotic idea. Relaxing gun laws is a completely ridiculous idea. Strict laws have kept us safe from gun crime. This is not a road we should go down in this country.
Surely it's the current leader's persona that is important. An English friend said that he thought Farage had a neutral accent - could be a taxi driver ... no?
The white van man image of UKIP is quite an illusory one.
UKIP is led by a Public School educated son of a stockbroker, who followed on from a Lord who was educated at Eton, and who spends his free time on his Scottish Estates.
Frankly it makes the Tory front bench seem a bit middle class!
Surely it's the current leader's persona that is important. An English friend said that he thought Farage had a neutral accent - could be a taxi driver ... no?
The white van man image of UKIP is quite an illusory one.
UKIP is led by a Public School educated son of a stockbroker, who followed on from a Lord who was educated at Eton, and who spends his free time on his Scottish Estates.
Frankly it makes the Tory front bench seem a bit middle class!
Non toffs aren't anti toff, that's socialist claptrap... Look at Boris
I understand the frustration of non kippers when their expectations of mud to stick repeatedly fail... As a better I constantly work out the odds and often the bet that is no value is the winner and I the loser... This is a bit like ukip becoming more popular when they should lose support according to the rules of politics
I'm not being pejorative about Mr F's accent - quite the opposite. The point is that if he does sound like a taxi driver then it is very good for his man of the people image, and that is what my friend thought.
I am genuinely interested in the extent to which growth in the UK economy has abated over the final quarter of 2013 and its likely trajectory through 2014.
Allow me, please, to present the evidence upon which a conclusion to this conundrum may be determined.
The British Bankers' Association (BBA) has reported continued strength in mortgage approvals in December, albeit at a rate slightly below market expectations. This is a probable indication that the heady climbs of August to October 2013 have now plateaued, at least for the winter season.
It should also be noted that the BBA only accounts for about two thirds of all mortgage lending and BBA institutions have been slowly losing share in the post recession mortgage lending market, mainly due to bank recapitalisation and deleveraging requirements bearing down on core lending. The BoE statistics due later this month will give a broader picture of the market.
BBA Members approved 46,521 loans for house purchase worth £7.7bn last month, compared to the forecast of 47,300.
However it marked the highest monthly total since September 2007 and a 42% increase against December 2012.
Those inclined to fear a property market bubble should take note of the commentary on the figures by Matthew Pointon, Property Economist at Capital Economics:
"Banks show no signs that they are about to start engaging in the kind of lending practices that characterised the mid-2000s credit boom."
"The government is introducing new mortgage rules that aim to prevent any return to irresponsible lending. Lenders will also have to consider whether someone can afford their mortgage repayments now and when interest rates eventually start to rise."
"The tighter mortgage rules due in this April are likely to “keep a lid on lending”.
Continued strong performance on prudential terms and at reasonable rates of growth.
St. George couldn't have asked for more.
Avery, you are beginning to look desperate. The by election results are getting to you !
Surely it's the current leader's persona that is important. An English friend said that he thought Farage had a neutral accent - could be a taxi driver ... no?
The white van man image of UKIP is quite an illusory one.
UKIP is led by a Public School educated son of a stockbroker, who followed on from a Lord who was educated at Eton, and who spends his free time on his Scottish Estates.
Frankly it makes the Tory front bench seem a bit middle class!
Non toffs aren't anti toff, that's socialist claptrap... Look at Boris
I understand the frustration of non kippers when their expectations of mud to stick repeatedly fail... As a better I constantly work out the odds and often the bet that is no value is the winner and I the loser... This is a bit like ukip becoming more popular when they should lose support according to the rules of politics
I'm not being pejorative about Mr F's accent - quite the opposite. The point is that if he does sound like a taxi driver then it is very good for his man of the people image, and that is what my friend thought.
Was agreeing with you, sorry to be unclear
Maybe it's the zeal of the convert, but I am the kind of person who is overlooking ukips faults because i Lost faith in the other parties. So I know how these new Ukip voters feel because I am one
Labour left the door open for mass immigration, the lib dems back even more of it and ruined their reputation over tuition fees anyway, and the conservative leader wants a mandate to campaign to stay in the EU... Where else is there to go?
BBA Members approved 46,521 loans for house purchase worth £7.7bn last month, compared to the forecast of 47,300.
However it marked the highest monthly total since September 2007 and a 42% increase against December 2012.
Those inclined to fear a property market bubble should take note of the commentary on the figures by Matthew Pointon, Property Economist at Capital Economics:
"Banks show no signs that they are about to start engaging in the kind of lending practices that characterised the mid-2000s credit boom."
"The government is introducing new mortgage rules that aim to prevent any return to irresponsible lending. Lenders will also have to consider whether someone can afford their mortgage repayments now and when interest rates eventually start to rise."
"The tighter mortgage rules due in this April are likely to “keep a lid on lending”.
Continued strong performance on prudential terms and at reasonable rates of growth.
St. George couldn't have asked for more.
Right, so property. Not business. Not investment in productivity and job creation, but fuelling overpriced housing in London. And that's good news ?
Mr. Brooke
You didn't take due note of Ben Broadbent's speech to the LSI.
I suspect you just looked up his c.v. and ignored his speech because of his educational and banking provenance.
Had you read it, you will have noted that investment in residential housing is an early, or 'leading', symptom of an economy recovering from recession, and, that business investment tends to lag early recovery.
Much of the reason for this is that businessmen tend only to commit to new capital investment after they see statistical evidence of an upturn in demand for their products and services. And this upturn is generally driven by increased consumer confidence and disposable income, which in turn is partly generated by confidence in their houses, their main personal asset, increasing in value.
So house prices rises driving mortgage finance demand leading to increased consumer confidence drives business investment.
St. George has the sequence written down on the inside page of his Smythson's "Blondes, Brunettes and Redheads" address book. He is consulting it now après ski in Klosters.
"Eastern estuary smoothed by a Dulwich education, chamfered on the trading floors of the City and regilded in the palaces of Strasbourg and Brussels.
Then boozed and fagged to appeal to the disgruntled of Essex."
And peole wonder how he has the common touch. Blair was obviously a mastermind of his time but the contrived accent (as opposed to Farage's real world moulding) was always going to be subconsiouly rebuffed aginst in the following years.
"Eastern estuary smoothed by a Dulwich education, chamfered on the trading floors of the City and regilded in the palaces of Strasbourg and Brussels.
Then boozed and fagged to appeal to the disgruntled of Essex."
And peole wonder how he has the common touch. Blair was obviously a mastermind of his time but the contrived accent (as opposed to Farage's real world moulding) was always going to be subconsiouly rebuffed aginst in the following years.
Ukip turn smears to cheers!
Amazing how the intended insults play like a ukip ppb!
BBA Members approved 46,521 loans for house purchase worth £7.7bn last month, compared to the forecast of 47,300.
However it marked the highest monthly total since September 2007 and a 42% increase against December 2012.
Those inclined to fear a property market bubble should take note of the commentary on the figures by Matthew Pointon, Property Economist at Capital Economics:
"Banks show no signs that they are about to start engaging in the kind of lending practices that
"The tighter mortgage rules due in this April are likely to “keep a lid on lending”.
Continued strong performance on prudential terms and at reasonable rates of growth.
St. George couldn't have asked for more.
Right, so property. Not business. Not investment in productivity and job creation, but fuelling overpriced housing in London. And that's good news ?
Mr. Brooke
You didn't take due note of Ben Broadbent's speech to the LSI.
I suspect you just looked up his c.v. and ignored his speech because of his educational and banking provenance.
St. George has the sequence written down on the inside page of his Smythson's "Blondes, Brunettes and Redheads" address book. He is consulting it now après ski in Klosters.
My point as it has been since 2011 is that this recession is different. large companies are sat on cash and consumers are overborrowed. Osborne has done little to get companies to part with their cash and lots to re-gear consumers.
As ever with you NewConservatives it's always too little too late. Cameron finally starts on abour re-shoring today at Davos ( probably some US consulutant sold him the idea ). He should have been banging on about it in 2010. Now I can laugh as I watch you try to tell me why import substitution is a really good idea,
"So house prices rises driving mortgage finance demand leading to increased consumer confidence drives business investment"
Ha ha - I see no problem here. And people wonder why houses don't get built. Throw some council houses into the mix and no-one has to give a S about anything ever.
BBA Members approved 46,521 loans for house purchase worth £7.7bn last month, compared to the forecast of 47,300.
However it marked the highest monthly total since September 2007 and a 42% increase against December 2012.
Those inclined to fear a property market bubble should take note of the commentary on the figures by Matthew Pointon, Property Economist at Capital Economics:
"Banks show no signs that they are about to start engaging in the kind of lending practices that
"The tighter mortgage rules due in this April are likely to “keep a lid on lending”.
Continued strong performance on prudential terms and at reasonable rates of growth.
St. George couldn't have asked for more.
Right, so property. Not business. Not investment in productivity and job creation, but fuelling overpriced housing in London. And that's good news ?
Mr. Brooke
You didn't take due note of Ben Broadbent's speech to the LSI.
I suspect you just looked up his c.v. and ignored his speech because of his educational and banking provenance.
St. George has the sequence written down on the inside page of his Smythson's "Blondes, Brunettes and Redheads" address book. He is consulting it now après ski in Klosters.
My point as it has been since 2011 is that this recession is different. large companies are sat on cash and consumers are overborrowed. Osborne has done little to get companies to part with their cash and lots to re-gear consumers.
As ever with you NewConservatives it's always too little too late. Cameron finally starts on abour re-shoring today at Davos ( probably some US consulutant sold him the idea ). He should have been banging on about it in 2010. Now I can laugh as I watch you try to tell me why import substitution is a really good idea,
Timing is all, Mr. Brooke.
May I suggest you seek solace in tantric 'meditation'.
[Am being sent out on shopping mission. As Farage might say: "No peace for the wicked". Catch up later].
Even contemplating messing with gun laws is just idiotic. All it would take is one massive shooting in the US for it to be derailed.
Absolutely idiotic idea. Relaxing gun laws is a completely ridiculous idea. Strict laws have kept us safe from gun crime. This is not a road we should go down in this country.
Whilst I would agree with you that in the current climate supporting gun law repeal would be politically idiotic, your assertion that strict laws have kept us safe is simply wrong.
This is from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
"Of course there will be some cut-off-your-noses types but in general the general public is quite sensible about these things."
That is certainly the perceived wisdom. That as the election zooms, more attention will be paid to UKIP and their popularity will plummet, thus leaving the field to the serious players to whom the voters will return. In my view that will probably happen, but to what degree?
Mr. Jessop made the point that UKIP is a populist, protest party. My feel is that there are an awful lot of people who would love to protest about the way this country has been governed in recent years and a party representing their views would be popular.
There may well be some "swing-back" from UKIP to the main parties at the GE, but I think it will be less than many commentators imagine and a good deal less than the Conservatives need.
Yes, but they have to feel that UKIP are a 'safe' place to protest; in other words, that the views held by the 'protest' party are not things they also object to. That's UKIP's positioning problem. It needs to scoop up as many anti-EU or EU-concerned voters as possible, without repelling them.
In the EU election, the other concerns will not matter as much. In a GE, they will.
UKIP also need to do a better job of vetting candidates (as in reality, do all the parties). And vetting should not just be a case of being mates with other members.
BBA Members approved 46,521 loans for house purchase worth £7.7bn last month, compared to the forecast of 47,300.
However it marked the highest monthly total since September 2007 and a 42% increase against December 2012.
Those inclined to fear a property market bubble should take note of the commentary on the figures by Matthew Pointon, Property Economist at Capital Economics:
"Banks show no signs that they are about to start engaging in the kind of lending practices that
"The tighter mortgage rules due in this April are likely to “keep a lid on lending”.
Continued strong performance on prudential terms and at reasonable rates of growth.
St. George couldn't have asked for more.
Right, so property. Not business. Not investment in productivity and job creation, but fuelling overpriced housing in London. And that's good news ?
Mr. Brooke
You didn't take due note of Ben Broadbent's speech to the LSI.
I suspect you just looked up his c.v. and ignored his speech because of his educational and banking provenance.
St. George has the sequence written down on the inside page of his Smythson's "Blondes, Brunettes and Redheads" address book. He is consulting it now après ski in Klosters.
My point as it has been since 2011 is that this recession is different. large companies are sat on cash and consumers are overborrowed. Osborne has done little to get companies to part with their cash and lots to re-gear consumers.
As ever with you NewConservatives it's always too little too late. Cameron finally starts on abour re-shoring today at Davos ( probably some US consulutant sold him the idea ). He should have been banging on about it in 2010. Now I can laugh as I watch you try to tell me why import substitution is a really good idea,
Timing is all, Mr. Brooke.
May I suggest you seek solace in tantric 'meditation'.
[Am being sent out on shopping mission. As Farage might say: "No peace for the wicked". Catch up later].
Yes time is all and Osborne has got nearly all the big decisions wrong. His crossroads was 2011 when he could either sit on his hands or go for reform. He sat on his hands and has wasted 5 years in this country's economic recovery. All the things he should have done remain undone and somebody will have to do them.
Surely it's the current leader's persona that is important. An English friend said that he thought Farage had a neutral accent - could be a taxi driver ... no?
The white van man image of UKIP is quite an illusory one.
UKIP is led by a Public School educated son of a stockbroker, who followed on from a Lord who was educated at Eton, and who spends his free time on his Scottish Estates.
Frankly it makes the Tory front bench seem a bit middle class!
Farage's accent is music hall louche, it's one of his charms. I imagine Ukridge would have sounded similar.
I think many voters detect more than a little arrogance in politicians. They are doing us a favour by telling us what to do, so it's only right that they can "fiddle" their expenses and talk down to us.
Labour have always known what's best for us, that's why a referendum would be wasted on the "little" people. The Conservatives live in a different world and are accustomed to their word being law, and the LDs are just false.
That's why Ukip with their oddballs and "characters" will take some stopping - they come across with all their many faults as being slightly normal. Don't underestimate the voters' resentment. Just look at politician's standings in a any comparative poll.
The first major party to do humility may get a bonus.
Post May 2014, Ukip will drop back, but it will take a few dozen Blooms to make the Ukip flower wilt.
Even contemplating messing with gun laws is just idiotic. All it would take is one massive shooting in the US for it to be derailed.
Absolutely idiotic idea. Relaxing gun laws is a completely ridiculous idea. Strict laws have kept us safe from gun crime. This is not a road we should go down in this country.
Whilst I would agree with you that in the current climate supporting gun law repeal would be politically idiotic, your assertion that strict laws have kept us safe is simply wrong.
This is from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
There position is backed up by by studies carried out by the US National Academy of Sciences and by murder and suicide stats from around the world.
Politically I don't think it would be idiotic.
In addition to current firearm/shotgun owners ~700,000, there is a larger group of air gun owners. (I want to say 2 million, but I can't find the source).
I get the impression that UKIP have one policy …… the obvious …….. which their voters know about. Otherwise their leaders can come up with almost anything and the supporters will go along with it. Provided always that it involves getting out of the EU. Whatever the longterm cost.
I get the impression that UKIP have one policy …… the obvious …….. which their voters know about. Otherwise their leaders can come up with almost anything and the supporters will go along with it. Provided always that it involves getting out of the EU. Whatever the longterm cost.
And that's why, despite poor old voters coming in for criticism, they will find themsleves unable to vote UKIP come GE2015. They need something more than a policy that would be unavailable from anything other than a Tory OM. Of course there will be some cut-off-your-noses types but in general the general public is quite sensible about these things.
And that's also why @MickPork's contention that the public will ignore the economic aggregates is similar to the What Have The Romans Done For Us sketch in Life of Brian.
You seriously think all the kippers will just magically come back to the fold do you? No, they wont. Some will but right now nowhere near enough for Cammie's target of under 5% to be anything other than wishful thinking. Farage has to crash and burn spectacularly. A fall like the one after last May's elections won't do it since they fell to above what they were at the beginning of 2013.
As for this imaginary contention you just made up for me, try reading what I said instead of inventing straw men. I'm saying economic stats are meaningless to the ordinary voter not any economic recovery that they themselves feel. Which is precisely why is called a feel good factor and also why it's immune to inept economic spinning. Either the public will feel it or they won't. Simple as that.
They care about the feelgood factor which may or may not be absent but most are not really sure what it's supposed to mean with (witness @TwistedFireStopper yday) one benefit being stopped, another tax break being awarded, pensions here there and everywhere. Fine. But the corollary of this uncertainty is that they will fear anything getting worse and Lab represents a return to this "worse". They felt worst just after May 2010 and they don't want to go through all that again.
You're right. Cam hasn't got the kippers down to less than 5%. Today. But there is not going to be a GE today.
For the reasons I described above I think it's very likely that come GE2015 he will have achieved that.
Even contemplating messing with gun laws is just idiotic. All it would take is one massive shooting in the US for it to be derailed.
Absolutely idiotic idea. Relaxing gun laws is a completely ridiculous idea. Strict laws have kept us safe from gun crime. This is not a road we should go down in this country.
Whilst I would agree with you that in the current climate supporting gun law repeal would be politically idiotic, your assertion that strict laws have kept us safe is simply wrong.
This is from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
There position is backed up by by studies carried out by the US National Academy of Sciences and by murder and suicide stats from around the world.
Politically I don't think it would be idiotic.
In addition to current firearm/shotgun owners ~700,000, there is a larger group of air gun owners. (I want to say 2 million, but I can't find the source).
Firstly, let me say I'm hardly anti-shooting.
As for the current laws: shotguns and rifles can have a purpose (shooting, stalking etc) and are not the most concealable of weapons. But I fail to see what handguns can be used for outside a shooting club.
Having said all that, there is certainly room for the legislation to be tweaked.
I get the impression that UKIP have one policy …… the obvious …….. which their voters know about. Otherwise their leaders can come up with almost anything and the supporters will go along with it. Provided always that it involves getting out of the EU. Whatever the longterm cost.
I get the impression that UKIP have one policy …… the obvious …….. which their voters know about. Otherwise their leaders can come up with almost anything and the supporters will go along with it. Provided always that it involves getting out of the EU. Whatever the longterm cost.
And that's also why @MickPork's contention that the public will ignore the economic aggregates is similar to the What Have The Romans Done For Us sketch in Life of Brian.
As for this imaginary contention you just made up for me, try reading what I said instead of inventing straw men. I'm saying economic stats are meaningless to the ordinary voter not any economic recovery that they themselves feel. Which is precisely why is called a feel good factor and also why it's immune to inept economic spinning. Either the public will feel it or they won't. Simple as that.
They care about the feelgood factor which may or may not be absent but most are not really You're right. Cam hasn't got the kippers down to less than 5%. Today. But there is not going to be a GE today.
For the reasons I described above I think it's very likely that come GE2015 he will have achieved that.
What happens if his problem isn't kippers ?
last polling said onlt a thired of kippers would vote blue to keep Miliband out. So if we say the kippers are on 12% then Cameron gets 4% back, the kippers stay on 8%. Ince the kipper vote has lots of NOTAs and stay at homes they wouldn't vote Cameron anyway. Cameron's problem may be more that he switches too many of his own voters off and can't get them to come out for him.
I reckon many voters will be happily in denial re any ukip downsides. For a while anyway. Maybe to 2015.
Oh,dear, "in denial" is such a loaded term and carries with it feelings of comfort to its user. "Those folks are in denial", implies that they are wrong/stupid/barking where as the speaker is a veritable beacon of common sense and wisdom.
I would suggest that with UKIP supporters something else is going on. They are not, "in denial" about their parties weaknesses, they just don't care because they feel that for the first time in many years, there is a party that seems to be speaking for them and people like them.
All the stories about UKIP "eccentricities" don't seem to be denting the Party's popularity so far and I am not sure they will in the future, at least not to the degree that Cameron needs.
I reckon many voters will be happily in denial re any ukip downsides. For a while anyway. Maybe to 2015.
Oh,dear, "in denial" is such a loaded term and carries with it feelings of comfort to its user. "Those folks are in denial", implies that they are wrong/stupid/barking where as the speaker is a veritable beacon of common sense and wisdom.
I would suggest that with UKIP supporters something else is going on. They are not, "in denial" about their parties weaknesses, they just don't care because they feel that for the first time in many years, there is a party that seems to be speaking for them and people like them.
All the stories about UKIP "eccentricities" don't seem to be denting the Party's popularity so far and I am not sure they will in the future, at least not to the degree that Cameron needs.
One factor which ought to have "banked" some Ld/Lab switchers was Ed Miliband's decision not to intervene in Syria. The decision to invade Iraq by Blair was the final straw for many who had traditionally supported Labour.2 million of us marched on the streets to tell him and the Libs opposition to Iraq made them largely the beneficiaries. Had Ed supported Cameron over Syria,there was a fair chance of history repeating itself,with the same electoral effect, if not all straight back to the L/Ds,some to Green or stay at home,but Labour's poll standing would have suffered. The crucial decision over Syria wasn't just the right thing to do,it was politically very sound. Anyway,it didn't happen. 7 out of 10 in the Crapper competiton but I was amazed to see a loo I have used frequently in Amsterdam!
I reckon Cameron may struggle to get a lot of Kippers back.
The "no one likes us, we don't care" brigade are probably immune to fruitcake and loons jibes and contain a lot of former non-voters. Like Millwall supporters, they're not going to be tempted by Tottenham Hotspur invites.
I reckon Cameron may struggle to get a lot of Kippers back.
The "no one likes us, we don't care" brigade are probably immune to fruitcake and loons jibes and contain a lot of former non-voters. Like Millwall supporters, they're not going to be tempted by Tottenham Hotspur invites.
His problem is he's also made it personal by name-calling - friut cakes etc. That was bad politics. Worse was he could have apologised but upped the ante instead.
I reckon many voters will be happily in denial re any ukip downsides. For a while anyway. Maybe to 2015.
Oh,dear, "in denial" is such a loaded term and carries with it feelings of comfort to its user. "Those folks are in denial", implies that they are wrong/stupid/barking where as the speaker is a veritable beacon of common sense and wisdom.
I would suggest that with UKIP supporters something else is going on. They are not, "in denial" about their parties weaknesses, they just don't care because they feel that for the first time in many years, there is a party that seems to be speaking for them and people like them.
All the stories about UKIP "eccentricities" don't seem to be denting the Party's popularity so far and I am not sure they will in the future, at least not to the degree that Cameron needs.
UKIP' s big problem is that they have too few Richard Tyndall' s and far too many BNP lite supporters. Until they they can shed the Buffton Tuffton' s and passive aggressive racists they will never advance.
MonikerDiCanio - I think Ed M is a problem for political betters. He doesn't seem to be influencing the labour vote - and even if he ends up successful I doubt we'll learn lessons because I don't think parties are generally going to start voting for uncharismatic leaders.
Comments
David Herdson - yes Ming's policy was for the Lisbon Treaty but the idea became party policy and is now law (if you can define a "significant transfer of powers") which Eurosceptics find surprisingly difficult to recall.
The game has changed but you're still playing by the old rules
That will cause a backlash and whether you like it or not it is self-evidently why little Ed is pinning his hopes on the "cost of living crisis" continuing to make the headlines. It is a clear danger for the tories just as little Ed being an electoral liability come an election campaign is a clear danger for labour.
"Imagine the tories were really nasty?" I don't think all that many labour voters will appreciate being told that from the party that helped the tories in power. If Clegg doesn't come up with a considerably better reason than that to vote for the lib dems then he's going to find out the hard way just how bad things can get.
You're making the same mistake the tories did with the kippers. The lib dems are not the only place to go and if you p**s off voters enough they will vote for someone else or just not vote at all, regardless of copious bar charts and being told 'who can win here'.
I bet that Lib/Lab/Con members cannot say the same about changing their sorry heaps.
BTW have been moving out of a couple of my iffy stocks today.
This has been a good government and is achieving a lot to clear up Labour's disastrous mismanagement of the country from 97-10. The coalition deserve's another go in 2015.
Im not commenting on the details of the manifesto, just pointing out that the things that seem important to critics consistently arent to ukip supporters it seems
Statistics are not that frightening really and, if you know how to read them, they can be quite illuminating.
Now let's consider the Markit Index on House Price Expectations (referred to downthread), as good as any leading indicator of changes in consumer confidence levels in the economy, or, as you put it, "the feelgood factor".
This Index which is measured monthly both as a UK weighted average and as an average for each region comprising the UK , can be set out in a table to help readers to discern trends in changes of confidence.
Here is such a table from the latest Markit-Knight Frank report.
http://bit.ly/1avsMRL
If you have difficulty interpretting the table, think of values below 49 as ground nuts and values of above 51 as acorns. 50-51 can be thought of as peanuts. Once you get the hang of it you will see just how useful "economic stats" can be in aiding an understanding of changes in consumer sentiment.
Easy innit?
I think you are right in that Farage lacks political polish and most of his fellows don't have any, but in a way that is part of their appeal - they are not seen as part of the system. As you say they are a "protest, popularist" party. But being popular is a good thing in a democracy, isn't it?
Also remember that criticism is sometimes valid, and can even be helpful. Dismissing criticism can be dangerous when it conceals a truth.
I think JosiasJessop is just aching for a fight with me as the last one was cut off by the mods
It just seems to me that trying to pacify all the disparate factions that most Lib Dem MPs' majorities are built on is going to be like herding cats, especially now that they will have less benefit of the doubt and people are going to want concrete answers about what they would do in a hung parliament situation.
The big mistake comes from the very phrase "2010 lib dems". They no longer exist. To use the phrase implies that they are a still coherent mass of voters who can be predicted with complete accuracy and who are somehow always going to be on the verge of returning to the lib dem fold. They will not. That's over.
Even the most deluded Clegg spinner doesn't believe there is a hope in hell of the lib dems repeating their 2010 result so quite obviously that 2010 aggregate no longer applies. You can posit that a chunk of them will go back to the lib dems and the chances are some will. The question is always going to be how many and since not all of them will be from labour in the first place it's slightly tedious to base all electoral assumptions on that one small group.
To use "2010 lib dems" as a touchstone after the coalition is pretty arbitrary and meaningless now that we know so many voters are quite happy to forego previous party allegiance. Perhaps it would be far more helpful just to go back to the more accurate phrase "floating voter" since no party has a monopoly on where the voters go. While the idea that 2010 lib dems are the most important chunk of voters may well be a self-serving one for Clegg supporters and spinners, but the truth is it's actually a load of old nonsense.
In addition, the bigger you get, the more serious you have to become. UKIP policies, aside from Europe, are a joke. The 2010 manifesto turn-around is an example. How can anyone trust anything they say in 2015 after Farage's comments? I mean, manifestos are always loose, but this is taking that to a whole new level.
I also disagree that UKIP are invulnerable to the normal media rules. They may be *less* vulnerable, but they're not invulnerable. It's very dangerous to think otherwise.
Tears of Laughter etc...etc...
Why not? They voted for a party that is now in govt, of course 10% of them are disappointed that the minority partner LDs didn't bring back Clause 4 but what is the alternative? As we have seen, Lab are as much a shower now as they were in 2010. What's changed? Nothing.
Their big idea (Plan A is wrong) turned out to be a duffer and they don't have anything else apart from to whinge from the sidelines, and on topics that Cam can easily (pace PMQs this week) bat back to them as being their own fault.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 2010 LD vote holds up because all anyone is in it for is power and they were successful.
If it happened, it would obviously be good for Con but it is blindingly obvious it isn't going to happen.
But just because if it did happen it would be good for Con does not mean it is the "Tory plan" - as they would be idiotic to have a plan that has zero chance of working.
It's like saying your plan is to win the national lottery - it's a meaningless statement.
What the "Tory Survival plan" should consist of (and I imagine it does) is retaining as many votes as possible that it won in 2010 and hoping to pick up the odd additional one here and there. That's all they can do - it's a tough ask but if they were to do it they'll end up with a decent result.
Have edited.
UKIP is led by a Public School educated son of a stockbroker, who followed on from a Lord who was educated at Eton, and who spends his free time on his Scottish Estates.
Frankly it makes the Tory front bench seem a bit middle class!
And that's also why @MickPork's contention that the public will ignore the economic aggregates is similar to the What Have The Romans Done For Us sketch in Life of Brian.
We should just face the facts. There are more floating voters than ever and tailoring everything to one subsection of the lib dems from 2010 simply doesn't make much sense. As important as lib dem labour switchers are in the end they are just another way of subdividing what is a very fluid and pretty unhappy bunch of voters just now.
I certainly wouldn't put much stall in tailoring every policy to pass a 'Clegg test' for these 2010 lib dems. If a party wants disillusioned voters then triangulating isn't always the best way.
That's the theory - and it plays well with the 2 party crowd. But compare the poll ratings of the LDs, who are co-governing in a sensible manner, with Ed M's and his silly "we're not tories - we'll freeze your gas bills" message.
As I remarked the other day, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing of events around 362AD, criticised Julian (emperor) for promising to fix prices of commodities as it was well-known doing so could lead to scarcity and great hardship.
Reminds me, I need to review that book in the near future.
The British Bankers' Association (BBA) has reported continued strength in mortgage approvals in December, albeit at a rate slightly below market expectations. This is a probable indication that the heady climbs of August to October 2013 have now plateaued, at least for the winter season.
It should also be noted that the BBA only accounts for about two thirds of all mortgage lending and BBA institutions have been slowly losing share in the post recession mortgage lending market, mainly due to bank recapitalisation and deleveraging requirements bearing down on core lending. The BoE statistics due later this month will give a broader picture of the market.
BBA Members approved 46,521 loans for house purchase worth £7.7bn last month, compared to the forecast of 47,300.
However it marked the highest monthly total since September 2007 and a 42% increase against December 2012.
Those inclined to fear a property market bubble should take note of the commentary on the figures by Matthew Pointon, Property Economist at Capital Economics:
"Banks show no signs that they are about to start engaging in the kind of lending practices that characterised the mid-2000s credit boom."
"The government is introducing new mortgage rules that aim to prevent any return to irresponsible lending. Lenders will also have to consider whether someone can afford their mortgage repayments now and when interest rates eventually start to rise."
"The tighter mortgage rules due in this April are likely to “keep a lid on lending”.
Continued strong performance on prudential terms and at reasonable rates of growth.
St. George couldn't have asked for more.
I understand the frustration of non kippers when their expectations of mud to stick repeatedly fail... As a better I constantly work out the odds and often the bet that is no value is the winner and I the loser... This is a bit like ukip becoming more popular when they should lose support according to the rules of politics
As for this imaginary contention you just made up for me, try reading what I said instead of inventing straw men. I'm saying economic stats are meaningless to the ordinary voter not any economic recovery that they themselves feel. Which is precisely why is called a feel good factor and also why it's immune to inept economic spinning. Either the public will feel it or they won't. Simple as that.
That is certainly the perceived wisdom. That as the election zooms, more attention will be paid to UKIP and their popularity will plummet, thus leaving the field to the serious players to whom the voters will return. In my view that will probably happen, but to what degree?
Mr. Jessop made the point that UKIP is a populist, protest party. My feel is that there are an awful lot of people who would love to protest about the way this country has been governed in recent years and a party representing their views would be popular.
There may well be some "swing-back" from UKIP to the main parties at the GE, but I think it will be less than many commentators imagine and a good deal less than the Conservatives need.
This doesn't seem to be going away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-25880287
I would not be surprised to hear Farage claiming descent through a morganatic branch of some Ruritanian monarchy.
It is not by accident that the kippers are enshrouded in the imperial colour of purple.
One obvious new factor is if the voters are teed off about LD hugging the Tories in the indy No campaign as well as in the Coalition.
However, the above also applies to Labour - which means that they are less likely to vote Labour t the extent that that applies. Likewise if the current Labour leader in Scotland, Ms Lamont, goes on much more on about means testing for universal benefits such as prescriptions and bus fares for the old even when those are popular and actually quite efficient fiscally and administratively. (I know this is a Westminster election we are talking about - but insofar as they are London Labour HQ policies to appeal to the Home Counties ...).
Some recent polling has shown SNP and Labour Wesminster VIs to be very close, though I believe the SNP still need a feaw percent margin over Labour to get the same seats. Too early to say yet anyway, especially as the referendum will have its impact.
Even contemplating messing with gun laws is just idiotic. All it would take is one massive shooting in the US for it to be derailed.
Absolutely idiotic idea. Relaxing gun laws is a completely ridiculous idea. Strict laws have kept us safe from gun crime. This is not a road we should go down in this country.
Eastern estuary smoothed by a Dulwich education, chamfered on the trading floors of the City and regilded in the palaces of Strasbourg and Brussels.
Then boozed and fagged to appeal to the disgruntled of Essex.
I am genuinely interested in the extent to which growth in the UK economy has abated over the final quarter of 2013 and its likely trajectory through 2014.
Allow me, please, to present the evidence upon which a conclusion to this conundrum may be determined.
Maybe it's the zeal of the convert, but I am the kind of person who is overlooking ukips faults because i Lost faith in the other parties. So I know how these new Ukip voters feel because I am one
Labour left the door open for mass immigration, the lib dems back even more of it and ruined their reputation over tuition fees anyway, and the conservative leader wants a mandate to campaign to stay in the EU... Where else is there to go?
You didn't take due note of Ben Broadbent's speech to the LSI.
I suspect you just looked up his c.v. and ignored his speech because of his educational and banking provenance.
Had you read it, you will have noted that investment in residential housing is an early, or 'leading', symptom of an economy recovering from recession, and, that business investment tends to lag early recovery.
Much of the reason for this is that businessmen tend only to commit to new capital investment after they see statistical evidence of an upturn in demand for their products and services. And this upturn is generally driven by increased consumer confidence and disposable income, which in turn is partly generated by confidence in their houses, their main personal asset, increasing in value.
So house prices rises driving mortgage finance demand leading to increased consumer confidence drives business investment.
St. George has the sequence written down on the inside page of his Smythson's "Blondes, Brunettes and Redheads" address book. He is consulting it now après ski in Klosters.
Then boozed and fagged to appeal to the disgruntled of Essex."
And peole wonder how he has the common touch. Blair was obviously a mastermind of his time but the contrived accent (as opposed to Farage's real world moulding) was always going to be subconsiouly rebuffed aginst in the following years.
Amazing how the intended insults play like a ukip ppb!
As ever with you NewConservatives it's always too little too late. Cameron finally starts on abour re-shoring today at Davos ( probably some US consulutant sold him the idea ). He should have been banging on about it in 2010. Now I can laugh as I watch you try to tell me why import substitution is a really good idea,
Ha ha - I see no problem here. And people wonder why houses don't get built. Throw some council houses into the mix and no-one has to give a S about anything ever.
May I suggest you seek solace in tantric 'meditation'.
[Am being sent out on shopping mission. As Farage might say: "No peace for the wicked". Catch up later].
This is from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
There position is backed up by by studies carried out by the US National Academy of Sciences and by murder and suicide stats from around the world.
In the EU election, the other concerns will not matter as much. In a GE, they will.
UKIP also need to do a better job of vetting candidates (as in reality, do all the parties). And vetting should not just be a case of being mates with other members.
Labour have always known what's best for us, that's why a referendum would be wasted on the "little" people. The Conservatives live in a different world and are accustomed to their word being law, and the LDs are just false.
That's why Ukip with their oddballs and "characters" will take some stopping - they come across with all their many faults as being slightly normal. Don't underestimate the voters' resentment. Just look at politician's standings in a any comparative poll.
The first major party to do humility may get a bonus.
Post May 2014, Ukip will drop back, but it will take a few dozen Blooms to make the Ukip flower wilt.
In addition to current firearm/shotgun owners ~700,000, there is a larger group of air gun owners. (I want to say 2 million, but I can't find the source).
You're right. Cam hasn't got the kippers down to less than 5%. Today. But there is not going to be a GE today.
For the reasons I described above I think it's very likely that come GE2015 he will have achieved that.
As for the current laws: shotguns and rifles can have a purpose (shooting, stalking etc) and are not the most concealable of weapons. But I fail to see what handguns can be used for outside a shooting club.
Having said all that, there is certainly room for the legislation to be tweaked.
What happens if his problem isn't kippers ?
last polling said onlt a thired of kippers would vote blue to keep Miliband out. So if we say the kippers are on 12% then Cameron gets 4% back, the kippers stay on 8%. Ince the kipper vote has lots of NOTAs and stay at homes they wouldn't vote Cameron anyway. Cameron's problem may be more that he switches too many of his own voters off and can't get them to come out for him.
I would suggest that with UKIP supporters something else is going on. They are not, "in denial" about their parties weaknesses, they just don't care because they feel that for the first time in many years, there is a party that seems to be speaking for them and people like them.
All the stories about UKIP "eccentricities" don't seem to be denting the Party's popularity so far and I am not sure they will in the future, at least not to the degree that Cameron needs.
The decision to invade Iraq by Blair was the final straw for many who had traditionally supported Labour.2 million of us marched on the streets to tell him and the Libs opposition to Iraq made them largely the beneficiaries.
Had Ed supported Cameron over Syria,there was a fair chance of history repeating itself,with the same electoral effect, if not all straight back to the L/Ds,some to Green or stay at home,but Labour's poll standing would have suffered.
The crucial decision over Syria wasn't just the right thing to do,it was politically very sound.
Anyway,it didn't happen.
7 out of 10 in the Crapper competiton but I was amazed to see a loo I have used frequently in Amsterdam!
The "no one likes us, we don't care" brigade are probably immune to fruitcake and loons jibes and contain a lot of former non-voters. Like Millwall supporters, they're not going to be tempted by Tottenham Hotspur invites.
Seriously, you should patent that and sell it to the media.*
*For Rod's sake, I am aware that you can't patent a quote. I'm also aware that I don't know copyright law in depth.