Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Swing voters haven’t stopped swinging – they’re just doing

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited February 2014 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Swing voters haven’t stopped swinging – they’re just doing it differently

Once upon a time, most people voted at general elections and nearly everyone that did voted Conservative or Labour.  And thus the key swing vote was born: those persuadable voters in marginal constituencies.  Win them and you win the election.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Good article David
  • Very good article.

    I also wonder if FPTP only really works in the more binary world of two dominant parties. It looks like 2015 is going to throw up an absolute stinker of an outcome. I'm guessing it will be close to 35/35/15/15 but Labour having a large majority.
  • Fascinating article Mr Herdson! What do you mean by the 2010 Lib Dem to Lab voters being a "wholly different category"? They sound similar in the sense that many of them were not Lib Dem identifying in 2010 in the same way that many of the "2010 Tories" that are now UKIP were not Tory identifying - except of course the 2010 Lib Dems have "returned home" to Lab, whereas the UKIP "2010 Tories" have found a "new home"?
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited February 2014
    Nicely put. Labour and Tories (and the Lib Dems?) are making a better fist of keeping hold of middle class voters (ABC1) than those choosey and pissed off working class C2s
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited February 2014
    A while back I wrote a PB thread with a graph of vote counts showing that over a long time the Lab + LD vote and also the Con + DNV vote was essentially static. I think UKIP are starting to attract many of the DNV crowd into the polling booths for the first time and so increasing turnouts may not necessarily be good news for Dave anymore. What is certain is that being in coalition has lost Clegg the lefty half of his vote and they ain't coming back, no matter how beastly he is to Gove. And gives Dave a huge mountain to climb.
  • Slight correction. Thatcher won in 83 and to a lesser extent in 87 with a divided anti tory vote. In 83 the sdp came very close to labour's share of the vote.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    What's this? .... I come onto PB and we're discussing swingers ....

    They say Bedford is the place for it .... and plenty of "it" at that ....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,566
    Excellent article, David. I don't think we should rule out the scenario that the UKIP vote shriks back to say 6-7% (still double last time) and we see a strong ConLab dominance than we have for many years. I don't especially want that for obvious reasons (it would probably mostly mean a UKIP->Tory shift from now) but it's a possible outcome.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Slight correction. Thatcher won in 83 and to a lesser extent in 87 with a divided anti tory vote. In 83 the sdp came very close to labour's share of the vote.

    Slight correction. Twas the SDP as part of the Alliance that came within 2 points of the Labour share of the vote in 1983.

  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    Patrick said:

    A while back I wrote a PB thread with a graph of vote counts showing that over a long time the Lab + LD vote and also the Con + DNV vote was essentially static. I think UKIP are starting to attract many of the DNV crowd into the polling booths for the first time and so increasing turnouts may not necessarily be good news for Dave anymore. What is certain is that being in coalition has lost Clegg the lefty half of his vote and they ain't coming back, no matter how beastly he is to Gove. And gives Dave a huge mountain to climb.

    Wasn't it the case that at last year's local elections (not the same as general elections for sure) the turnout didn't actually increase, even with Ukip's excellent performance?
  • Millsy said:

    Patrick said:

    A while back I wrote a PB thread with a graph of vote counts showing that over a long time the Lab + LD vote and also the Con + DNV vote was essentially static. I think UKIP are starting to attract many of the DNV crowd into the polling booths for the first time and so increasing turnouts may not necessarily be good news for Dave anymore. What is certain is that being in coalition has lost Clegg the lefty half of his vote and they ain't coming back, no matter how beastly he is to Gove. And gives Dave a huge mountain to climb.

    Wasn't it the case that at last year's local elections (not the same as general elections for sure) the turnout didn't actually increase, even with Ukip's excellent performance?
    Because the Tory vote fell.
  • Patrick said:

    Very good article.

    I also wonder if FPTP only really works in the more binary world of two dominant parties. It looks like 2015 is going to throw up an absolute stinker of an outcome. I'm guessing it will be close to 35/35/15/15 but Labour having a large majority.

    If indeed Labour win more seats than the Tories but fewer votes the call for Disraelian "fancy franchises" from the Right, both here and elsewhere, will become deafening. Given that State Pensions are set to take £1 in every £7 of the Government's budget - a proportion that will rise with time, as will the cost of healthcare for the elderly, might it not be possible to use franchise reform as a tool for addressing this also?

    What about replacing the current House of Lords with an elected Revising Chamber with its powers over Money Bills fully restored? The trick would be to restrict the vote for this Upper House to people in work - i.e. to exclude pensioners and other claimants (and also housewives, for that matter). The Commons could retain FPTP (or perhaps move to AV, retaining the constituency link that politicians are so sentimental about) whilst the ex-Lords could use a Party List system.

    It would probably take a Grand Coalition of Tory and Labour to achieve this, but given what the next Government will need to do probably only a Grand Coalition can do it. We are certainly in the greatest national emergency since 1945.

  • It's a good article, but Nick Palmer has already alluded to the problem with this analysis: the combined Labour and Conservative polling is currently higher with most pollsters than it was in 2010. If UKIP are picking up the former swing voters, what's propping up the Consevative figure in particular?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited February 2014
    Will Pension costs rise over time?. Surely the govt just needs to move the goalposts as longevity increases.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited February 2014
    Innocent Abroad

    I certainly agree we face an emergency. The emergency is that one of our leading political parties is economically incoherent and delightedly happy to push populist but ruinous policy. There are a lot of votes to be had from the gullible as you trash a country. How else can we explain Balls' outright denial that Brown ruined the national finances through incontinent spending?

    Your proposal is great but for that very reason it will come to be over Labour's dead body.

    Our only salvation ultimately will come through education and getting the British people to think and to understand the real world outcomes of economic policy decisions. That 40% of us will vote for socialism is a harsh indictment of our national capacity to understand economic realities.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I see that as a fairly likely outcome. A lot depends on how much the kippers dislike the Labour party manifesto in 2015.

    Excellent article, David. I don't think we should rule out the scenario that the UKIP vote shriks back to say 6-7% (still double last time) and we see a strong ConLab dominance than we have for many years. I don't especially want that for obvious reasons (it would probably mostly mean a UKIP->Tory shift from now) but it's a possible outcome.

  • Patrick said:

    Very good article.

    I also wonder if FPTP only really works in the more binary world of two dominant parties. It looks like 2015 is going to throw up an absolute stinker of an outcome. I'm guessing it will be close to 35/35/15/15 but Labour having a large majority.

    If indeed Labour win more seats than the Tories but fewer votes the call for Disraelian "fancy franchises" from the Right, both here and elsewhere, will become deafening. Given that State Pensions are set to take £1 in every £7 of the Government's budget - a proportion that will rise with time, as will the cost of healthcare for the elderly, might it not be possible to use franchise reform as a tool for addressing this also?

    What about replacing the current House of Lords with an elected Revising Chamber with its powers over Money Bills fully restored? The trick would be to restrict the vote for this Upper House to people in work - i.e. to exclude pensioners and other claimants (and also housewives, for that matter). The Commons could retain FPTP (or perhaps move to AV, retaining the constituency link that politicians are so sentimental about) whilst the ex-Lords could use a Party List system.

    It would probably take a Grand Coalition of Tory and Labour to achieve this, but given what the next Government will need to do probably only a Grand Coalition can do it. We are certainly in the greatest national emergency since 1945.

    Doubtless the right would be up in arms but it has happened before that elections produce the "wrong result" where a party wins most votes but fewer seats. In February 1974, Conservatives outpolled Labour; in 1951, Churchill was returned to office despite Clement Atlee's Labour Party winning more votes. The system remained unchanged.

    And in the unlikely event the principle of fancy franchises were agreed, the details would never be. Take your own proposal of workers only: wait till the right realises this increases the proportion of trades union members! Or that it disenfranchises older voters who are most likely to put their crosses next to Tory candidates.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704
    UKIP are building up to the Euros, the ultimate vehicle for a protest vote. No wonder they are doing well right now, they are the "none of the above party".

    Still a very long way from winning a Westminster seat IMO. Their mix of nationalism and nostalgia is quite potent though.
  • Patrick said:

    Innocent Abroad

    I certainly agree we face an emergency. The emergency is that one of our leading political parties is economically incoherent and delightedly happy to push populist but ruinous policy. There are a lot of votes to be had from the gullible as you trash a country. How else can we explain Balls' outright denial that Brown ruined the national finances through incontinent spending?

    Your proposal is great but for that very reason it will come to be over Labour's dead body.

    Our only salvation ultimately will come through education and getting the British people to think and to understand the real world outcomes of economic policy decisions. That 40% of us will vote for socialism is a harsh indictment of our national capacity to understand economic realities.

    If you won't propose the criminalization of the Labour Party (which, by the way, is not socialist and, except for brief periods, none of them in the last 30 years, never has been) then the rest of your comments are just so much hot air. Sorry.

  • DecrepitJohnL (7.42 am) That's why I think we need a Grand Coalition.
  • Patrick said:

    Innocent Abroad

    I certainly agree we face an emergency. The emergency is that one of our leading political parties is economically incoherent and delightedly happy to push populist but ruinous policy. There are a lot of votes to be had from the gullible as you trash a country. How else can we explain Balls' outright denial that Brown ruined the national finances through incontinent spending?

    Your proposal is great but for that very reason it will come to be over Labour's dead body.

    Our only salvation ultimately will come through education and getting the British people to think and to understand the real world outcomes of economic policy decisions. That 40% of us will vote for socialism is a harsh indictment of our national capacity to understand economic realities.

    Brown's ruinously incontinent spending was less as a percentage of GDP than for many of his Conservative predecessors under Thatcher and Major, at least till the global economic meltdown hit.
  • antifrank said:

    It's a good article, but Nick Palmer has already alluded to the problem with this analysis: the combined Labour and Conservative polling is currently higher with most pollsters than it was in 2010. If UKIP are picking up the former swing voters, what's propping up the Consevative figure in particular?

    Not all that much. It's the paucity of the Labour figure which makes the Tory one look reasonably respectable. Note that in 1997, the Conservatives won around 31% of the vote - only just below the current Tory polling.

    In fact, not all the swing vote is with UKIP but a large proportion is. The rest is still fairly evenly divided between Con and Lab.

    To illustrate that, return the 8% or so of the LD vote that's jumped to Labour and see how the Populus figures from yesterday look based on the LD's pre-government electoral coalition:

    Con 33, Lab 28, LD 17, UKIP 15.
  • Slight correction. Thatcher won in 83 and to a lesser extent in 87 with a divided anti tory vote. In 83 the sdp came very close to labour's share of the vote.

    She won with a divided opposition vote, but not because of a divided vote. It was that division that enabled her to win landslides, not the elections themselves: those were won on the back of Con-Lab swing voters, which is why the Tory share stayed almost the same through 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 - the Conservatives won each election but with very different majorities.

    It's also misleading to lump together all non-Conservative votes as 'anti-Tory'. One reason the Conservative majorities were so big in 1983 and 1987 is because the anti-Labour vote was much bigger than the anti-Tory one. Unlike the closeness that later built up between Lib Dems and New Labour, the Alliance was genuinely equidistant and had as much against the unilateralist, Militant-infiltrated, properly red socialist Labour of Foot and early Kinnock as against Thatcher's Conservatives.
  • If indeed Labour win more seats than the Tories but fewer votes the call for Disraelian "fancy franchises" from the Right, both here and elsewhere, will become deafening. Given that State Pensions are set to take £1 in every £7 of the Government's budget - a proportion that will rise with time, as will the cost of healthcare for the elderly, might it not be possible to use franchise reform as a tool for addressing this also?

    What about replacing the current House of Lords with an elected Revising Chamber with its powers over Money Bills fully restored? The trick would be to restrict the vote for this Upper House to people in work - i.e. to exclude pensioners and other claimants (and also housewives, for that matter). The Commons could retain FPTP (or perhaps move to AV, retaining the constituency link that politicians are so sentimental about) whilst the ex-Lords could use a Party List system.

    It would probably take a Grand Coalition of Tory and Labour to achieve this, but given what the next Government will need to do probably only a Grand Coalition can do it. We are certainly in the greatest national emergency since 1945.

    Doubtless the right would be up in arms but it has happened before that elections produce the "wrong result" where a party wins most votes but fewer seats. In February 1974, Conservatives outpolled Labour; in 1951, Churchill was returned to office despite Clement Atlee's Labour Party winning more votes. The system remained unchanged.

    And in the unlikely event the principle of fancy franchises were agreed, the details would never be. Take your own proposal of workers only: wait till the right realises this increases the proportion of trades union members! Or that it disenfranchises older voters who are most likely to put their crosses next to Tory candidates.

    I'm not sure that a revision of the franchises is likely to be placed on the table - or will be picked up if it is - but I do agree that if there's a seemingly perverse result, there'll be a lot of soul-searching.

    The 2015 position could be significantly different from 1951 or Feb 1974 because:

    - The scale of the discrepancy will be much bigger. If Labour does emerge a little ahead on seats, it will be way behind in votes. It could just about win an overall majority without a plurality of votes. By contrast, the earlier elections were fairly close on both counts.

    - Scotland. Assuming a No in the referendum, the West Lothian Question will again rear its head but much more so than before. Labour's majority would be based on Scottish MPs voting on English legislation, when the Conservative plurality in votes in England would be even greater than GB/UK overall. Add in Wales too where that Assembly has devolved powers.
  • Slight correction. Thatcher won in 83 and to a lesser extent in 87 with a divided anti tory vote. In 83 the sdp came very close to labour's share of the vote.

    She won with a divided opposition vote, but not because of a divided vote. It was that division that enabled her to win landslides, not the elections themselves: those were won on the back of Con-Lab swing voters, which is why the Tory share stayed almost the same through 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 - the Conservatives won each election but with very different majorities.

    It's also misleading to lump together all non-Conservative votes as 'anti-Tory'. One reason the Conservative majorities were so big in 1983 and 1987 is because the anti-Labour vote was much bigger than the anti-Tory one. Unlike the closeness that later built up between Lib Dems and New Labour, the Alliance was genuinely equidistant and had as much against the unilateralist, Militant-infiltrated, properly red socialist Labour of Foot and early Kinnock as against Thatcher's Conservatives.
    Indeed it did. I remember Vince Cable voting for me in an internal Labour Party branch election in 1975. But he didn't mean it really...

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    antifrank said:

    It's a good article, but Nick Palmer has already alluded to the problem with this analysis: the combined Labour and Conservative polling is currently higher with most pollsters than it was in 2010. If UKIP are picking up the former swing voters, what's propping up the Consevative figure in particular?

    or is the hidden child in the room the fact many of the Kippers wont vote and as per normal the polls are overstating Labour, perhaps substantially.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Post September will UKIP morph into an English Nationalist Party? That would press lots of Kipper buttons, would seriously upset the union jack waving Tories and utterly decimate the WWC urban Labour vote.
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915

    Slight correction. Thatcher won in 83 and to a lesser extent in 87 with a divided anti tory vote. In 83 the sdp came very close to labour's share of the vote.

    She won with a divided opposition vote, but not because of a divided vote. It was that division that enabled her to win landslides, not the elections themselves: those were won on the back of Con-Lab swing voters, which is why the Tory share stayed almost the same through 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 - the Conservatives won each election but with very different majorities.

    It's also misleading to lump together all non-Conservative votes as 'anti-Tory'. One reason the Conservative majorities were so big in 1983 and 1987 is because the anti-Labour vote was much bigger than the anti-Tory one. Unlike the closeness that later built up between Lib Dems and New Labour, the Alliance was genuinely equidistant and had as much against the unilateralist, Militant-infiltrated, properly red socialist Labour of Foot and early Kinnock as against Thatcher's Conservatives.
    Indeed it did. I remember Vince Cable voting for me in an internal Labour Party branch election in 1975. But he didn't mean it really...

    I remember Vince Cable getting absolutely thumped when he stood as Labour candidate against Lord Strathclyde's father in my home seat Glasgow Hillhead in 1970. Tam had double Vince's vote.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,704

    Slight correction. Thatcher won in 83 and to a lesser extent in 87 with a divided anti tory vote. In 83 the sdp came very close to labour's share of the vote.

    She won with a divided opposition vote, but not because of a divided vote. It was that division that enabled her to win landslides, not the elections themselves: those were won on the back of Con-Lab swing voters, which is why the Tory share stayed almost the same through 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 - the Conservatives won each election but with very different majorities.

    It's also misleading to lump together all non-Conservative votes as 'anti-Tory'. One reason the Conservative majorities were so big in 1983 and 1987 is because the anti-Labour vote was much bigger than the anti-Tory one. Unlike the closeness that later built up between Lib Dems and New Labour, the Alliance was genuinely equidistant and had as much against the unilateralist, Militant-infiltrated, properly red socialist Labour of Foot and early Kinnock as against Thatcher's Conservatives.
    Indeed it did. I remember Vince Cable voting for me in an internal Labour Party branch election in 1975. But he didn't mean it really...

    I remember Vince Cable getting absolutely thumped when he stood as Labour candidate against Lord Strathclyde's father in my home seat Glasgow Hillhead in 1970. Tam had double Vince's vote.
    Vince Cable's determination and persistence is impressive. Something we would be wise to remember.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Jonathan said:

    [UKIP are ] still a very long way from winning a Westminster seat IMO. Their mix of nationalism and nostalgia is quite potent though.

    I think one of the things that UKIP taps into is the notion that yes, the economy is getting better - but what has been the point of all the hard graft to repair Labour's broken economy if we then don't see any benefit because now we are obliged to let in any Tom, Dick or Habib?

    I still think that one of the more fascinating aspects of politics since 2010 is that the protest vote against two of the three main parties has not translated into a large voting intention rise for the third, supposedly untainted party. People may be hacked off with the coalition from both perspectives but the "floating" voter has essentially had to relocate to a new party to express their discontent.

    There is still a lot of anger out there towards Labour. They oversaw a massive increase in our population without being honest with the voters - a dishonesty that meant they could not make proper provision for extra health places, extra school places, extra welfare and pension needs that will seriously skew budget numbers for a generation or more. And they have a wretched Omega Male as their "leader".

    Next time around, many voters - not just the late-lamented floater - are going to have a hell of a choice. Nick Clegg? Are you mad??? Nigel Farage - ask me when I'm pissed and I'll say yes, ask me when I'm sober and I'll say no. And people vote sober.

    So the choice is down to re-electing a seriously disappointing and underwhelming Cameron or the utterly undeserving Miliband to lead the country. Quite a problem if you feel a social obligation to vote.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Doesn't it just show that he is now in the twilight of his career?
    Jonathan said:

    Slight correction. Thatcher won in 83 and to a lesser extent in 87 with a divided anti tory vote. In 83 the sdp came very close to labour's share of the vote.

    She won with a divided opposition vote, but not because of a divided vote. It was that division that enabled her to win landslides, not the elections themselves: those were won on the back of Con-Lab swing voters, which is why the Tory share stayed almost the same through 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 - the Conservatives won each election but with very different majorities.

    It's also misleading to lump together all non-Conservative votes as 'anti-Tory'. One reason the Conservative majorities were so big in 1983 and 1987 is because the anti-Labour vote was much bigger than the anti-Tory one. Unlike the closeness that later built up between Lib Dems and New Labour, the Alliance was genuinely equidistant and had as much against the unilateralist, Militant-infiltrated, properly red socialist Labour of Foot and early Kinnock as against Thatcher's Conservatives.
    Indeed it did. I remember Vince Cable voting for me in an internal Labour Party branch election in 1975. But he didn't mean it really...

    I remember Vince Cable getting absolutely thumped when he stood as Labour candidate against Lord Strathclyde's father in my home seat Glasgow Hillhead in 1970. Tam had double Vince's vote.
    Vince Cable's determination and persistence is impressive. Something we would be wise to remember.


  • Doubtless the right would be up in arms but it has happened before that elections produce the "wrong result" where a party wins most votes but fewer seats. In February 1974, Conservatives outpolled Labour; in 1951, Churchill was returned to office despite Clement Atlee's Labour Party winning more votes. The system remained unchanged.

    And in the unlikely event the principle of fancy franchises were agreed, the details would never be. Take your own proposal of workers only: wait till the right realises this increases the proportion of trades union members! Or that it disenfranchises older voters who are most likely to put their crosses next to Tory candidates.

    I'm not sure that a revision of the franchises is likely to be placed on the table - or will be picked up if it is - but I do agree that if there's a seemingly perverse result, there'll be a lot of soul-searching.

    The 2015 position could be significantly different from 1951 or Feb 1974 because:

    - The scale of the discrepancy will be much bigger. If Labour does emerge a little ahead on seats, it will be way behind in votes. It could just about win an overall majority without a plurality of votes. By contrast, the earlier elections were fairly close on both counts.

    - Scotland. Assuming a No in the referendum, the West Lothian Question will again rear its head but much more so than before. Labour's majority would be based on Scottish MPs voting on English legislation, when the Conservative plurality in votes in England would be even greater than GB/UK overall. Add in Wales too where that Assembly has devolved powers.
    In 1951, Labour won more votes than any party had done or would do until 1992. It lost the election. (Ironically, Labour then had the same problem the Conservatives do now: piling up huge majorities in safe seats.)

    If there is soul-searching to be done, it should be on the right. Does the Conservative Party still aspire to being a national party in Britain rather than just England? Conservatives used to be able to count on two dozen MPs from Scotland. Even today, they have eight from Wales. Conservatives must be careful after a "perverse" defeat not to turn to what might be portrayed by their opponents as strident English nationalism.
  • The crux of the matter is that the country needs a shake up, starting with politics.
    I'm close to not voting next time, for the first time since I was a young man (a week on the pull in Spain with the lads was always going to trump Major and Kinnock).
    I'm hoping for all the Armageddon ducks to line up-Scottish independence, a UKIP Euro triumph, Tories winning the popular vote but still losing out to Labour and a Lib Dem meltdown to complete the chaos-then we'll truly be living in interesting times!

    I've just been reading a profile of Stephanie Flanders in The Times, and was struck by this comment she made when queried about her past relationships and friends (Balls, Cooper, Milliband, Katz, Osborne et al)

    " These connections, she says, are merely a consequence of how Britain works: a tight-knit Oxbridge elite ends up in charge of everything."

    That just about sums it up.
  • The crux of the matter is that the country needs a shake up, starting with politics.
    I'm close to not voting next time, for the first time since I was a young man (a week on the pull in Spain with the lads was always going to trump Major and Kinnock).
    I'm hoping for all the Armageddon ducks to line up-Scottish independence, a UKIP Euro triumph, Tories winning the popular vote but still losing out to Labour and a Lib Dem meltdown to complete the chaos-then we'll truly be living in interesting times!

    I've just been reading a profile of Stephanie Flanders in The Times, and was struck by this comment she made when queried about her past relationships and friends (Balls, Cooper, Milliband, Katz, Osborne et al)

    " These connections, she says, are merely a consequence of how Britain works: a tight-knit Oxbridge elite ends up in charge of everything."

    That just about sums it up.

    Name me a country which isn't run by an élite of one sort or another. An educational élite is probably better than a familial or militaristic one.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited February 2014
    "One of those ways is that what a government can do is hemmed in by circumstances more than has been the case a little earlier, due to economic weakness and a public willingness to protest against the measures needed to deal with that weakness. Another is their background: all four are/were Oxford PPE graduates and essentially career politicians."

    There is also the fact that so much policy is now set at EU level that the main parties do not have different offers.

    UKIP are able to differentiate themselves because they start with not accepting EU policies as unchangeable.
  • The crux of the matter is that the country needs a shake up, starting with politics.
    I'm close to not voting next time, for the first time since I was a young man (a week on the pull in Spain with the lads was always going to trump Major and Kinnock).
    I'm hoping for all the Armageddon ducks to line up-Scottish independence, a UKIP Euro triumph, Tories winning the popular vote but still losing out to Labour and a Lib Dem meltdown to complete the chaos-then we'll truly be living in interesting times!

    I've just been reading a profile of Stephanie Flanders in The Times, and was struck by this comment she made when queried about her past relationships and friends (Balls, Cooper, Milliband, Katz, Osborne et al)

    " These connections, she says, are merely a consequence of how Britain works: a tight-knit Oxbridge elite ends up in charge of everything."

    That just about sums it up.

    Name me a country which isn't run by an élite of one sort or another. An educational élite is probably better than a familial or militaristic one.
    I can't.
    Maybe we should have a go at founding one.
  • The crux of the matter is that the country needs a shake up, starting with politics.
    I'm close to not voting next time, for the first time since I was a young man (a week on the pull in Spain with the lads was always going to trump Major and Kinnock).
    I'm hoping for all the Armageddon ducks to line up-Scottish independence, a UKIP Euro triumph, Tories winning the popular vote but still losing out to Labour and a Lib Dem meltdown to complete the chaos-then we'll truly be living in interesting times!

    I've just been reading a profile of Stephanie Flanders in The Times, and was struck by this comment she made when queried about her past relationships and friends (Balls, Cooper, Milliband, Katz, Osborne et al)

    " These connections, she says, are merely a consequence of how Britain works: a tight-knit Oxbridge elite ends up in charge of everything."

    That just about sums it up.

    Name me a country which isn't run by an élite of one sort or another. An educational élite is probably better than a familial or militaristic one.
    An elite is one thing but to have so much of the Establishment not just from the same university but from the same course, is pushing it a bit.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    UKIP, UKIP, go away,
    don't come back another day.
    If I see your poster style,
    I will run a country mile.

    That seems the mantra this morning from the PB Lab/Lib/Cons this morning, from NickPalmer and JackW downwards, (upwards?).

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable
  • The crux of the matter is that the country needs a shake up, starting with politics.
    I'm close to not voting next time, for the first time since I was a young man (a week on the pull in Spain with the lads was always going to trump Major and Kinnock).
    I'm hoping for all the Armageddon ducks to line up-Scottish independence, a UKIP Euro triumph, Tories winning the popular vote but still losing out to Labour and a Lib Dem meltdown to complete the chaos-then we'll truly be living in interesting times!

    I've just been reading a profile of Stephanie Flanders in The Times, and was struck by this comment she made when queried about her past relationships and friends (Balls, Cooper, Milliband, Katz, Osborne et al)

    " These connections, she says, are merely a consequence of how Britain works: a tight-knit Oxbridge elite ends up in charge of everything."

    That just about sums it up.

    Name me a country which isn't run by an élite of one sort or another. An educational élite is probably better than a familial or militaristic one.
    An elite is one thing but to have so much of the Establishment not just from the same university but from the same course, is pushing it a bit.
    No. I went on that course. It's all it's cracked up to be. True, I got a borderline third in the economics papers, but then I was still cracked up at the absurdity of the notion of perfect competition. I leave it to you to work out which bit a got a borderline first in...

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536

    The crux of the matter is that the country needs a shake up, starting with politics.
    I'm close to not voting next time, for the first time since I was a young man (a week on the pull in Spain with the lads was always going to trump Major and Kinnock).
    I'm hoping for all the Armageddon ducks to line up-Scottish independence, a UKIP Euro triumph, Tories winning the popular vote but still losing out to Labour and a Lib Dem meltdown to complete the chaos-then we'll truly be living in interesting times!

    I've just been reading a profile of Stephanie Flanders in The Times, and was struck by this comment she made when queried about her past relationships and friends (Balls, Cooper, Milliband, Katz, Osborne et al)

    " These connections, she says, are merely a consequence of how Britain works: a tight-knit Oxbridge elite ends up in charge of everything."

    That just about sums it up.

    Name me a country which isn't run by an élite of one sort or another. An educational élite is probably better than a familial or militaristic one.
    An elite is one thing but to have so much of the Establishment not just from the same university but from the same course, is pushing it a bit.
    It does create an intellectual closed loop.

    It's remarkable really, how few people from first class universities, like Bristol, Imperial College, Durham, Newcastle, Exeter, King's College, Leeds etc. reach the top in politics.

  • MikeK said:

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable

    Which 25 seats are UKIP going to win at the GE?

  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,591
    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    Name me a country which isn't run by an élite of one sort or another. An educational élite is probably better than a familial or militaristic one.

    I have been to more countries than most. They all have elites, usually going back many generations. Cambodia had a damn good go at breaking that link, but even after the Khmer Rouge, old regime members came out of the woodwork from exile overseas to resume their positions.

    Although it clearly has an elite, the country that has an elite that is perhaps easiest to break into is the US. Just make a billion from a standing start and you are in, and if you want it the way will be made clear for you to be in Congress with a run at the White House. (Although it still helps to be called Kennedy, Clinton or Bush...)
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    MikeK said:

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable

    Which 25 seats are UKIP going to win at the GE?

    I'm not a seer: perhaps you can tell me. But the numbers are in the ballpark. ;)
  • Interesting rebuttal from Stephen Tall on Fraser Nelson (and OGH) theory that Lib Dems are being nasty to Gove to woo the left:

    http://stephentall.org/2014/02/07/fraser-nelsons-must-read-guide-to-utterly-and-completely-misunderstanding-the-lib-dems-coalition-strategy/?wt=3
  • MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable

    Which 25 seats are UKIP going to win at the GE?

    I'm not a seer: perhaps you can tell me. But the numbers are in the ballpark. ;)
    Surely you must know what the -say - top 50 targets for UKIP are?

    That would be a start - then there could be a discussion on the factors that might mitigate or militate UKIP success.

    Or is it a number you've just plucked out of the air?

  • MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable

    Which 25 seats are UKIP going to win at the GE?

    I'm not a seer: perhaps you can tell me. But the numbers are in the ballpark. ;)
    Oh come on Mike, you must know at least a few of the seats.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    Patrick said:

    Very good article.

    I also wonder if FPTP only really works in the more binary world of two dominant parties. It looks like 2015 is going to throw up an absolute stinker of an outcome. I'm guessing it will be close to 35/35/15/15 but Labour having a large majority.

    If you have two parties, each winning 40%+, on a 75% turnout, then I think FPTP has few problems.

    When you move to a four-party system, and a party can win an overall majority, despite 70% of voters voting against them, and 35% not voting at all, then the system is broken.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable

    Which 25 seats are UKIP going to win at the GE?

    I'm not a seer: perhaps you can tell me. But the numbers are in the ballpark. ;)

    I'd love to see UKIP win 25 seats, but it won't happen in 2015. We'd need to poll 20%+.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Sean_F said:

    Patrick said:

    Very good article.

    I also wonder if FPTP only really works in the more binary world of two dominant parties. It looks like 2015 is going to throw up an absolute stinker of an outcome. I'm guessing it will be close to 35/35/15/15 but Labour having a large majority.

    If you have two parties, each winning 40%+, on a 75% turnout, then I think FPTP has few problems.

    When you move to a four-party system, and a party can win an overall majority, despite 70% of voters voting against them, and 35% not voting at all, then the system is broken.

    If they changed the method of candidate selection, to primaries for new candidates and sitting MPs, the parties would change to reflect the electorate's wishes, and a two party system could work.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    O/T, interesting graphic showing the state of ocean swell around the planet.

    http://magicseaweed.com/World-Surf-Chart/64/

    There is a black hole to the west of the UK! A bit choppy down towards Antarctica, otherwise nothing remotely to compare with what is hitting us.....
  • Sean_F said:

    The crux of the matter is that the country needs a shake up, starting with politics.
    I'm close to not voting next time, for the first time since I was a young man (a week on the pull in Spain with the lads was always going to trump Major and Kinnock).
    I'm hoping for all the Armageddon ducks to line up-Scottish independence, a UKIP Euro triumph, Tories winning the popular vote but still losing out to Labour and a Lib Dem meltdown to complete the chaos-then we'll truly be living in interesting times!

    I've just been reading a profile of Stephanie Flanders in The Times, and was struck by this comment she made when queried about her past relationships and friends (Balls, Cooper, Milliband, Katz, Osborne et al)

    " These connections, she says, are merely a consequence of how Britain works: a tight-knit Oxbridge elite ends up in charge of everything."

    That just about sums it up.

    Name me a country which isn't run by an élite of one sort or another. An educational élite is probably better than a familial or militaristic one.
    An elite is one thing but to have so much of the Establishment not just from the same university but from the same course, is pushing it a bit.
    It does create an intellectual closed loop.

    It's remarkable really, how few people from first class universities, like Bristol, Imperial College, Durham, Newcastle, Exeter, King's College, Leeds etc. reach the top in politics.

    What it also shows is that these are people who knew at 16/17 that they wanted to be running the country at 40+. We are missing out on a huge amount of potential when the system fast-tracks the PPE(Oxon) group to the top.

    Yes, it's certainly possible for people to become MPs from less Enarquique backgrounds but how many of them reach cabinet level, never mind leadership level? The tendency has become worse if anything over the last 20 years with the rise of the SpAd and - consequently - the increasing importance of having connections in your early twenties, something that tends to come only with money, family, or university (hence the persisting and if anything increasing presence of Etonians, who can frequently tick all three boxes).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    The fact that UKIP mouthpieces on here just give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink I-could-tell-yer-but-I'd-have-to-kill-yer reply when asked to say which seats they think are in play for 2015 tells you all you need to know.

    They'll be happy with one. Any one.
  • The fact that UKIP mouthpieces on here just give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink I-could-tell-yer-but-I'd-have-to-kill-yer reply when asked to say which seats they think are in play for 2015 tells you all you need to know.

    They'll be happy with one. Any one.

    I would be happy with one, the best we can hope for is 2-5, our real time will come in 2020 when five years of socialism will all but destroy the country.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    The fact that UKIP mouthpieces on here just give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink I-could-tell-yer-but-I'd-have-to-kill-yer reply when asked to say which seats they think are in play for 2015 tells you all you need to know.

    They'll be happy with one. Any one.

    They won't know until after the May local elections.

    Last year's elections revealed 11 good prospects, hopefully this year's election results will suggest more.

    http://survation.com/2013/05/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/
  • maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
  • Sean_F said:

    The crux of the matter is that the country needs a shake up, starting with politics.
    I'm close to not voting next time, for the first time since I was a young man (a week on the pull in Spain with the lads was always going to trump Major and Kinnock).
    I'm hoping for all the Armageddon ducks to line up-Scottish independence, a UKIP Euro triumph, Tories winning the popular vote but still losing out to Labour and a Lib Dem meltdown to complete the chaos-then we'll truly be living in interesting times!

    I've just been reading a profile of Stephanie Flanders in The Times, and was struck by this comment she made when queried about her past relationships and friends (Balls, Cooper, Milliband, Katz, Osborne et al)

    " These connections, she says, are merely a consequence of how Britain works: a tight-knit Oxbridge elite ends up in charge of everything."

    That just about sums it up.

    Name me a country which isn't run by an élite of one sort or another. An educational élite is probably better than a familial or militaristic one.
    An elite is one thing but to have so much of the Establishment not just from the same university but from the same course, is pushing it a bit.
    It does create an intellectual closed loop.

    It's remarkable really, how few people from first class universities, like Bristol, Imperial College, Durham, Newcastle, Exeter, King's College, Leeds etc. reach the top in politics.

    Hull.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    I would be happy with one, the best we can hope for is 2-5, our real time will come in 2020 when five years of socialism will all but destroy the country.

    And there you have it. UKIP's ambition - to be the Khmer Rouge of British politics.

    Sitting on their arses for five years, watching as the country slides into a province of Brussels under Brother Miliband.

    Truly, UKIP is the Fucking For Virginity Party.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Sean_F said:

    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable

    Which 25 seats are UKIP going to win at the GE?

    I'm not a seer: perhaps you can tell me. But the numbers are in the ballpark. ;)

    I'd love to see UKIP win 25 seats, but it won't happen in 2015. We'd need to poll 20%+.
    I'd be happy to see Sean Fear MP (Luton South) to the north of me but for the fact that I've also got the LibDems as dangerous insurgents to the south of me in St. Albans - Surrounded !!

    What's a decent Scottish noble pie maker to do ?!?

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    The fact that UKIP mouthpieces on here just give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink I-could-tell-yer-but-I'd-have-to-kill-yer reply when asked to say which seats they think are in play for 2015 tells you all you need to know.

    They'll be happy with one. Any one.

    I would be happy with one, the best we can hope for is 2-5, our real time will come in 2020 when five years of socialism will all but destroy the country.
    Even their fiercest critics wouldn't dare to dub the next Con/LibDem Coalition government as socialists .... well apart from some on Fox News.

  • UKIP is currently in a very fortunate place, as its central positions - pulling out of the EU and restricted immigration - can play well across the political spectrum. To move beyond protest, though, at some stage it will need to define itself politically in much greater detail. That does not necessarily mean specific policies, but it does mean setting out a general direction of travel. We know that the 2010 manifesto is now considered "drivel", but what will come in its place?

    Changing the subject, the discussion below about elites and the establishment encapsulates what is surely one of the main reasons why the Yes campaign is getting so much traction in Scotland. Whatever the economic and financial uncertainties, independence is a chance to start again. Why wouldn't you vote for that?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    UKIP is currently in a very fortunate place, as its central positions - pulling out of the EU and restricted immigration - can play well across the political spectrum. To move beyond protest, though, at some stage it will need to define itself politically in much greater detail. That does not necessarily mean specific policies, but it does mean setting out a general direction of travel. We know that the 2010 manifesto is now considered "drivel", but what will come in its place?

    Something like the Direct Democracy platform might be the safest choice for them. It avoids a definite big government/small government pitch, it's all about decentralisation of power.
  • In other news, a bit of a turnaround in the test match in Auckland to say the least. NZ over 500 in the first inning, bowl India out for 202, don't enforce the follow-on and the skittled for 105. India end day on 87-1, needing 320 more to win.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I would favour French style run off elections, the first round with a wide field, then the highest two going back to the polls a fortnight later. It takes most of the uncertainty out of a tactical vote, but also gives the electorate pause for thought after the first round.

    Sean_F said:

    Patrick said:

    Very good article.

    I also wonder if FPTP only really works in the more binary world of two dominant parties. It looks like 2015 is going to throw up an absolute stinker of an outcome. I'm guessing it will be close to 35/35/15/15 but Labour having a large majority.

    If you have two parties, each winning 40%+, on a 75% turnout, then I think FPTP has few problems.

    When you move to a four-party system, and a party can win an overall majority, despite 70% of voters voting against them, and 35% not voting at all, then the system is broken.

    If they changed the method of candidate selection, to primaries for new candidates and sitting MPs, the parties would change to reflect the electorate's wishes, and a two party system could work.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    The fact that UKIP mouthpieces on here just give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink I-could-tell-yer-but-I'd-have-to-kill-yer reply when asked to say which seats they think are in play for 2015 tells you all you need to know.

    They'll be happy with one. Any one.

    I would be happy with one, the best we can hope for is 2-5, our real time will come in 2020 when five years of socialism will all but destroy the country.
    Right so you think the country needs to be brought to its knees. Can't your party come up with an idea to grow without trashing the joint first ? I mean it's not even that you're original Labour have already put the country on its knees in 2008.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    I would favour French style run off elections, the first round with a wide field, then the highest two going back to the polls a fortnight later. It takes most of the uncertainty out of a tactical vote, but also gives the electorate pause for thought after the first round.

    Sean_F said:

    Patrick said:

    Very good article.

    I also wonder if FPTP only really works in the more binary world of two dominant parties. It looks like 2015 is going to throw up an absolute stinker of an outcome. I'm guessing it will be close to 35/35/15/15 but Labour having a large majority.

    If you have two parties, each winning 40%+, on a 75% turnout, then I think FPTP has few problems.

    When you move to a four-party system, and a party can win an overall majority, despite 70% of voters voting against them, and 35% not voting at all, then the system is broken.

    If they changed the method of candidate selection, to primaries for new candidates and sitting MPs, the parties would change to reflect the electorate's wishes, and a two party system could work.
    Yes, I like those too.

  • I would be happy with one, the best we can hope for is 2-5, our real time will come in 2020 when five years of socialism will all but destroy the country.

    And there you have it. UKIP's ambition - to be the Khmer Rouge of British politics.

    Sitting on their arses for five years, watching as the country slides into a province of Brussels under Brother Miliband.

    Truly, UKIP is the Fucking For Virginity Party.
    Wow, UKIP have really got you rattled.

    Either you are deliberately obtuse or very dim, of course UKIP would love to be in power after 2015 and get us out of the un democratic, corrupt EU as soon as possible, but we know that is not going to happen. I am dreading the thought of Red Ed taking this country back to the seventies, but given their rock steady polling share it seems like Labour will get in.

    UKIP supporters love this country and the thought of five years of Labour is appalling, if you suggesting we should support Cameron and his alleged referendum then you must be dreaming

    Why would we support a charlatan who continues to insult us (same applies to you), who will campaign to stay in if his referendum ever happens? And for me as well as getting out of the EU and bringing back grammar schools, it's also a matter of Common Sense v Common Purpose and I know which side I am on.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2014

    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable

    Which 25 seats are UKIP going to win at the GE?

    I'm not a seer: perhaps you can tell me. But the numbers are in the ballpark. ;)
    Surely you must know what the -say - top 50 targets for UKIP are?

    That would be a start - then there could be a discussion on the factors that might mitigate or militate UKIP success.

    Or is it a number you've just plucked out of the air?

    I worked out what I thought are seats that UKIP should do well in


    Tier 1

    S Bas & E Thurrock
    Thurrock
    Bromsgrove
    Halesown & Rowley Regis
    Staffordshire Moorlands
    Dudley North
    Morley & Outwood
    Newcastle Under Lyme**
    Stoke on Trent South
    Telford
    Walsall North
    Walsall South
    West Bromwich West
    Wolverhampton NE
    Barking
    Dag & Rain
    Plymouth Moor View
    Thanet North
    Thanet South
    Boston & Skegness

    Tier 2

    Broadland
    Great Yarmouth
    Peterborough
    West Suffolk
    Burton
    Cannock Chase
    Ludlow
    Stourbridge
    Bexhill & Battle
    Dartford
    Dover
    Folkestone & Hythe
    Hastings & Rye
    Spelthorne
    N Warks
    Brirmingham Northfield
    Stoke on Trent Central
    Stoke on Trent North
    West Brom East
    Birmingham Yardley
    Solihull
    Hx & Upm
    Erith & Thamesmead
    Bournemouth East
    Bridgewater & W Somerset
    Christchurch
    East Devon
    Kingswood
    Newton Abbot
    Poole
    SE Cornwall
    Torridge & W Devon
    Totnes
    N Devon

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    O/T there's an interesting story in the Telegraph about a woman who left £769,000 to the Conservative Party, and just £2,000 to her carer. She had no children, but three nephews and nieces.

    If there is any threat of litigation from these four, the Conservatives would be well advised to negotiate a quick settlement. Judges have moved a long way from believing in testamentary freedom, and love to rule against charities and political parties.
  • The fact that UKIP mouthpieces on here just give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink I-could-tell-yer-but-I'd-have-to-kill-yer reply when asked to say which seats they think are in play for 2015 tells you all you need to know.

    They'll be happy with one. Any one.

    I would be happy with one, the best we can hope for is 2-5, our real time will come in 2020 when five years of socialism will all but destroy the country.
    Right so you think the country needs to be brought to its knees. Can't your party come up with an idea to grow without trashing the joint first ? I mean it's not even that you're original Labour have already put the country on its knees in 2008.
    No I don't, just grow up and be realistic.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2014

    maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
    Yesterday afternoons thread

    Basically if the splits from the thread are to be believed on the make up of UKIPs current support , a UKIP score of 15 would represent

    6.75 from 2010 Conservatives (45%)
    3 of 2010 Kippers
    2.1 from 2010 LDs (14%)
    1.2 from 2010 Labs (8%)
    4.95 from Others & DNV (32%)

    This 32% includes the 2010 Kipper vote (3%) leaving 1.95 from others /DNV

    the 1.95 equates to 13% of the score of 15

    EDIT: This leads me to believe that the best chance of a UKIP success in by or Gen Elections is a seat where it was close between Lab & Con last time, with a combined BNP & UKIP vote of about 7-8% and a low turnout (that's where a lot of DNV s come into play)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    The fact that UKIP mouthpieces on here just give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink I-could-tell-yer-but-I'd-have-to-kill-yer reply when asked to say which seats they think are in play for 2015 tells you all you need to know.

    They'll be happy with one. Any one.

    I have given a long list of possibilities, but the two Thanets, Eastleigh, Thurrock & Boston & Skegness would be my top 5
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    isam said:

    maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
    Yesterday afternoons thread

    Basically if the splits from the thread are to be believed on the make up of UKIPs current support , a UKIP score of 15 would represent

    6.75 from 2010 Conservatives (45%)
    3 of 2010 Kippers
    2.1 from 2010 LDs (14%)
    1.2 from 2010 Labs (8%)
    4.95 from Others & DNV (32%)

    This 32% includes the 2010 Kipper vote (3%) leaving 1.95 from others /DNV

    the 1.95 equates to 13% of the score of 15

    EDIT: This leads me to believe that the best chance of a UKIP success in by or Gen Elections is a seat where it was close between Lab & Con last time, with a combined BNP & UKIP vote of about 7-8% and a low turnout (that's where a lot of DNV s come into play)
    Whoops! Ive added in the KIppers twice there! Ignore the "3 of 2010 Kippers"
  • isam said:

    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable

    Which 25 seats are UKIP going to win at the GE?

    I'm not a seer: perhaps you can tell me. But the numbers are in the ballpark. ;)
    Surely you must know what the -say - top 50 targets for UKIP are?

    That would be a start - then there could be a discussion on the factors that might mitigate or militate UKIP success.

    Or is it a number you've just plucked out of the air?

    I worked out what I thought are seats that UKIP should do well in


    Tier 1


    West Bromwich West


    Tier 2


    West Brom East


    Thanks for having a go!

    I only know (vaguely) two of those constituencies - the West Bromwich ones - both of which I would have down as safely Labour. West has only once dropped below a 50% Labour vote share - 45% in 2010, and East is similarly solidly red on 46%. Don't know whether Adrian Bailey (69 @2015 GE) is standing again in East, but I would be surprised if Watson didn't stand again in West. You might push the Lib Dems into fourth place, but coming second would be a major achievement, let alone winning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bromwich_East_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bromwich_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Sean_F said:

    O/T there's an interesting story in the Telegraph about a woman who left £769,000 to the Conservative Party, and just £2,000 to her carer. She had no children, but three nephews and nieces.

    If there is any threat of litigation from these four, the Conservatives would be well advised to negotiate a quick settlement. Judges have moved a long way from believing in testamentary freedom, and love to rule against charities and political parties.

    The article says she hadn't seen her relatives since the 1980s. What claim could they have on her estate?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10624966/Frugal-widow-becomes-one-of-biggest-donors-in-history-of-Conservative-Party.html
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2014

    isam said:

    MikeK said:

    MikeK said:

    It's the unbelief from them concerning UKIP, that makes me smile every day. And the more they wish it away, the more it grows. As Porky keeps saying: unspoofable

    Which 25 seats are UKIP going to win at the GE?

    I'm not a seer: perhaps you can tell me. But the numbers are in the ballpark. ;)
    Surely you must know what the -say - top 50 targets for UKIP are?

    That would be a start - then there could be a discussion on the factors that might mitigate or militate UKIP success.

    Or is it a number you've just plucked out of the air?

    I worked out what I thought are seats that UKIP should do well in


    Tier 1


    West Bromwich West


    Tier 2


    West Brom East


    Thanks for having a go!

    I only know (vaguely) two of those constituencies - the West Bromwich ones - both of which I would have down as safely Labour. West has only once dropped below a 50% Labour vote share - 45% in 2010, and East is similarly solidly red on 46%. Don't know whether Adrian Bailey (69 @2015 GE) is standing again in East, but I would be surprised if Watson didn't stand again in West. You might push the Lib Dems into fourth place, but coming second would be a major achievement, let alone winning.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bromwich_East_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bromwich_West_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
    to be honest I drew up that list about 10 months ago just by looking at 2010 results that fitted a formula I was working on.. know nothing about most of the seats, so some wil be spectacularly stupid to people that do

    I do know a few, such as Hx and Upminster where I live, and the surrounding, Thurrock, Barking, Romford and Dagenham & Rainham, and would say they are all ripe kipper territory (H&U big Con maj at the mo, but Lab have won here recently, and the sitting MP is UKIP in all but name, possibly to the right actually)

    Maybe its just the people I know (!) but my facebook news feed is full of anti immigration moans and anti this that the other stuff that I find a bit worryingly right wing to be honest. But this is the feeling in this neck of the woods.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    This is a good article but it misses a crucial conclusion. With all these different groups it only serves to make the ground game so much more important. The old days of getting a flat message out over the air are gone.

    To put it simply. Old days: one group, one message. Today: Many groups, many messages.

    Like every form of modern communication personalisation is key. Having a team of activists selling your message and then a smart database that can then end out targeted mail in support is the way you win elections.

    This is why Crosby and Dave are such a disaster for the Tories. They keep trying the air war route and instead end up splitting of their own vote with clumsy messaging.


    Of course the press don't like this argument, as it kinda makes them a lot less relevant, so we end up in a never ending cycle of journalists focusing on things that really don't matter and missing what is really going on. Hence why Mike, his site, and his blogging from outside the Westminster bubble are all so important.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,591

    maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
    The 'evidence' that UKIP has lots of former DNVs is that 32% of their support was previously other/DNV.

    By one rather stupid leap of faith, assuming that other=DNV, you can then say this is much higher than Labour or the Tories.

    However, anyone who voted UKIP in 2010 (3.1% of total electorate) would fall in to this category. 3.1% out of 12% is 25% of UKIP's support, so the real residual other/DNV figure is actually lower than the other parties. Given the rise in support, it's pretty tenuous to pretend they'll be retaining less than 80% of previous support on a worse case scenario. False recall is also probably boosting the number of people claiming 2010 Kipper status now as the cool vote to have.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited February 2014
    isam said:

    maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
    Yesterday afternoons thread

    Basically if the splits from the thread are to be believed on the make up of UKIPs current support , a UKIP score of 15 would represent

    6.75 from 2010 Conservatives (45%)
    3 of 2010 Kippers
    2.1 from 2010 LDs (14%)
    1.2 from 2010 Labs (8%)
    4.95 from Others & DNV (32%)

    This 32% includes the 2010 Kipper vote (3%) leaving 1.95 from others /DNV

    the 1.95 equates to 13% of the score of 15

    EDIT: This leads me to believe that the best chance of a UKIP success in by or Gen Elections is a seat where it was close between Lab & Con last time, with a combined BNP & UKIP vote of about 7-8% and a low turnout (that's where a lot of DNV s come into play)
    I'm sorry isam, even though I love you like a brother, all your calculations are a nonsense at the present time. All is in flux at the moment with the weather not the least of the coalitions worries.

    1: I believe that the flooded South West has lost patience with this government and will not forget the lack of action, both before and during their ordeal. I believe that they will wreak havoc on the Tories and Lib/Dems come election time, and who are they going to turn to: UKIP, there is no one else. The flooded South East will also take a bite out of Coalition strongholds.

    2. The major change in perception by a UKIP win in the Euros will also add to the general uncertainty.

    3. Finally, a yes vote for Scottish independence will put finis to a Labour stronghold and its effect at Westminster.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536

    Sean_F said:

    O/T there's an interesting story in the Telegraph about a woman who left £769,000 to the Conservative Party, and just £2,000 to her carer. She had no children, but three nephews and nieces.

    If there is any threat of litigation from these four, the Conservatives would be well advised to negotiate a quick settlement. Judges have moved a long way from believing in testamentary freedom, and love to rule against charities and political parties.

    The article says she hadn't seen her relatives since the 1980s. What claim could they have on her estate?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10624966/Frugal-widow-becomes-one-of-biggest-donors-in-history-of-Conservative-Party.html
    They might allege lack of testamentary capacity, on the ground that the deceased had failed to consider the moral claims which they had to a share of her estate. That sounds weak, but such is the judicial bias against charities and political parties, in favour of relatives, that it might succeed. Or at any rate, the judge might order their legal costs to be paid out of the estate.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2014
    MikeK said:

    isam said:

    maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
    Yesterday afternoons thread

    Basically if the splits from the thread are to be believed on the make up of UKIPs current support , a UKIP score of 15 would represent

    6.75 from 2010 Conservatives (45%)
    3 of 2010 Kippers
    2.1 from 2010 LDs (14%)
    1.2 from 2010 Labs (8%)
    4.95 from Others & DNV (32%)

    This 32% includes the 2010 Kipper vote (3%) leaving 1.95 from others /DNV

    the 1.95 equates to 13% of the score of 15

    EDIT: This leads me to believe that the best chance of a UKIP success in by or Gen Elections is a seat where it was close between Lab & Con last time, with a combined BNP & UKIP vote of about 7-8% and a low turnout (that's where a lot of DNV s come into play)
    I'm sorry isam, even though I love you like a brother, all your calculations are a nonsense at the present time. All is in flux at the moment with the weather not the least of the coalitions worries.

    1: I believe that the flooded South West has lost patience with this government and will not forget the lack of action, both before and during their ordeal. I believe that they will wreak havoc on the Tories and Lib/Dems come election time, and who are they going to turn to: UKIP, there is no one else. The flooded South East will also take a bite out of Coalition strongholds.

    2. The major change in perception by a UKIP win in the Euros will also add to the general uncertainty.

    3. Finally, a yes vote for Scottish independence will put finis to a Labour stronghold and its effect at Westminster.

    Every team needs a maverick Mike, and I suggest you take the "floating role" and the No10 shirt in the PB Kipper XI!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Cameron flood warning revelation

    Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.

    It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.

    Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.

    The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.

    The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.

    The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.

    The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    maaarsh said:

    maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
    The 'evidence' that UKIP has lots of former DNVs is that 32% of their support was previously other/DNV.

    By one rather stupid leap of faith, assuming that other=DNV, you can then say this is much higher than Labour or the Tories.

    However, anyone who voted UKIP in 2010 (3.1% of total electorate) would fall in to this category. 3.1% out of 12% is 25% of UKIP's support, so the real residual other/DNV figure is actually lower than the other parties. Given the rise in support, it's pretty tenuous to pretend they'll be retaining less than 80% of previous support on a worse case scenario. False recall is also probably boosting the number of people claiming 2010 Kipper status now as the cool vote to have.
    UKIP will not retain 100% of the voters who voted for them in 2010 therefore your calculations are spurious . Apart from those who will not vote at all in 2015 for various reasons including not the least because they are no longer alive , there are a few who are unhappy with today's version of UKIP and have left the party .
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    isam said:

    MikeK said:

    isam said:

    maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
    Yesterday afternoons thread

    Basically if the splits from the thread are to be believed on the make up of UKIPs current support , a UKIP score of 15 would represent

    6.75 from 2010 Conservatives (45%)
    3 of 2010 Kippers
    2.1 from 2010 LDs (14%)
    1.2 from 2010 Labs (8%)
    4.95 from Others & DNV (32%)

    This 32% includes the 2010 Kipper vote (3%) leaving 1.95 from others /DNV

    the 1.95 equates to 13% of the score of 15

    EDIT: This leads me to believe that the best chance of a UKIP success in by or Gen Elections is a seat where it was close between Lab & Con last time, with a combined BNP & UKIP vote of about 7-8% and a low turnout (that's where a lot of DNV s come into play)
    I'm sorry isam, even though I love you like a brother, all your calculations are a nonsense at the present time. All is in flux at the moment with the weather not the least of the coalitions worries.

    1: I believe that the flooded South West has lost patience with this government and will not forget the lack of action, both before and during their ordeal. I believe that they will wreak havoc on the Tories and Lib/Dems come election time, and who are they going to turn to: UKIP, there is no one else. The flooded South East will also take a bite out of Coalition strongholds.

    2. The major change in perception by a UKIP win in the Euros will also add to the general uncertainty.

    3. Finally, a yes vote for Scottish independence will put finis to a Labour stronghold and its effect at Westminster.

    Every team needs a maverick Mike, and I suggest you take the "floating role" and the No10 shirt in the PB Kipper XI!
    Thanks for the position, isam.
    have a glance at the "Cameron flood warning" below.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited February 2014
    MikeK said:

    Cameron flood warning revelation

    Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.

    It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.

    Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.

    The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.

    The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.

    The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.

    The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.

    It is a good job the Government did not fund more dredging on the Somerset Levels , it has saved tens of thousands of homes in Bridgwater and other places down stream from flooding .
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Sean_F

    'Judges have moved a long way from believing in testamentary freedom, and love to rule against charities and political parties.'

    My wife is currently acting as an executor and seeing at first hand that a Will, even when accompanied by a 'letter of wishes' is worthless if a judge decides it's unfair.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,591

    maaarsh said:

    maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
    The 'evidence' that UKIP has lots of former DNVs is that 32% of their support was previously other/DNV.

    By one rather stupid leap of faith, assuming that other=DNV, you can then say this is much higher than Labour or the Tories.

    However, anyone who voted UKIP in 2010 (3.1% of total electorate) would fall in to this category. 3.1% out of 12% is 25% of UKIP's support, so the real residual other/DNV figure is actually lower than the other parties. Given the rise in support, it's pretty tenuous to pretend they'll be retaining less than 80% of previous support on a worse case scenario. False recall is also probably boosting the number of people claiming 2010 Kipper status now as the cool vote to have.
    UKIP will not retain 100% of the voters who voted for them in 2010 therefore your calculations are spurious . Apart from those who will not vote at all in 2015 for various reasons including not the least because they are no longer alive , there are a few who are unhappy with today's version of UKIP and have left the party .
    I specifically dealt with that point, so thanks for not reading beyond the first line. If you think UKIP are retaining a lower percentage of their 2010 vote than Labour or the Tories (which is what it would take to render their true other/DNV larger than those two parties) then you're quite welcome to your bizarre assumptions.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053


    MikeK said:

    Cameron flood warning revelation



    Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.

    It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.

    Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.

    The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.

    The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.

    The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.

    The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.

    It is a good job the Government did not fund more dredging on the Somerset Levels , it has save tens of thousands of homes in Bridgwater and other places down stream from flooding .
    Really! So you admit that the Coalition -the British government - is incapable of defending all citizens equally? Shame on the government. And shame on you!
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    maaarsh said:

    maaarsh said:

    Another repetition of the nonsense about UKIP disproportionately picking up DNVs.

    Anything that you can point us to that confirms it is nonsense? Not saying you are wrong but would like to see where you get that from.
    The 'evidence' that UKIP has lots of former DNVs is that 32% of their support was previously other/DNV.

    By one rather stupid leap of faith, assuming that other=DNV, you can then say this is much higher than Labour or the Tories.

    However, anyone who voted UKIP in 2010 (3.1% of total electorate) would fall in to this category. 3.1% out of 12% is 25% of UKIP's support, so the real residual other/DNV figure is actually lower than the other parties. Given the rise in support, it's pretty tenuous to pretend they'll be retaining less than 80% of previous support on a worse case scenario. False recall is also probably boosting the number of people claiming 2010 Kipper status now as the cool vote to have.
    UKIP will not retain 100% of the voters who voted for them in 2010 therefore your calculations are spurious . Apart from those who will not vote at all in 2015 for various reasons including not the least because they are no longer alive , there are a few who are unhappy with today's version of UKIP and have left the party .
    Even if Ukip lost 25% of their 2010 vote, which would seem odd for a party who are polling up to 6 times that, the others & DNVs would still only be 17% of current support
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    john_zims said:

    @Sean_F

    'Judges have moved a long way from believing in testamentary freedom, and love to rule against charities and political parties.'

    My wife is currently acting as an executor and seeing at first hand that a Will, even when accompanied by a 'letter of wishes' is worthless if a judge decides it's unfair.

    Judges aren't meant to decide cases on the basis of "I sympathise with A, but not with B" but increasingly they do in probate and inheritance matters.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Hugh said:

    This leads me to believe that the best chance of a UKIP success in by or Gen Elections is a seat where it was close between Lab & Con last time, with a combined BNP & UKIP vote of about 7-8% and a low turnout (that's where a lot of DNV s come into play)

    Think you're wrong on that. Their best chance would be a close Con Lib seat with a low Lab vote and a demographic sympathetic to UKIP (perhaps rural working class..?) and low turnout.

    In this case, UKIP rather than Lab could benefit from the Lib Dem collapse as well as picking up a big chunk of Tories.

    ACyually I kind of agree. I should have said a close contest between Con & Lab or Con & LD, as that's what I based my calculations on. I just didn't type Con & LD out of pure laziness!
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @MikeK

    '2. The major change in perception by a UKIP win in the Euros will also add to the general uncertainty.'

    The Euros are a joke election and no matter what the outcome diddly- squat is going to change and voters treat it accordingly.Whereas we are stuck for five years with the outcome of the GE in 2015 and a lot can change.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited February 2014
    Sean_F said:

    john_zims said:

    @Sean_F

    'Judges have moved a long way from believing in testamentary freedom, and love to rule against charities and political parties.'

    My wife is currently acting as an executor and seeing at first hand that a Will, even when accompanied by a 'letter of wishes' is worthless if a judge decides it's unfair.

    Judges aren't meant to decide cases on the basis of "I sympathise with A, but not with B" but increasingly they do in probate and inheritance matters.
    It's going to be interesting to see what happens when p2p digital asset ownership bangs up against that. The deceased will program the ownership of their assets to automatically transfer to their preferred heirs on their death, and the people who thought they should have inherited will have to sue to those people to get them back, if they can work out who actually got them. The courts will then have to decide whether:

    a) The transaction giving de-facto ownership of the assets to the heir was a statement of intent that's as near as dammit to a will.
    b) At the point where the assets were transferred they weren't the deceased's to give because they were dead, so they have to be handed back to whoever the legal system thinks should get them based on reading the will.
    c) The assets were transferred before the person died, sort-of, so let's just not count them as part of the estate.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    NickCleggs face on that picture....he looks devastated.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited February 2014
    Watching the UK news from afar .. the British seem to have turned into a nation of weatherwimps..I blame the Coalition and Gay marriages..
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469

    MikeK said:

    Cameron flood warning revelation

    Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.

    It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.

    Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.

    The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.

    The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.

    The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.

    The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.

    It is a good job the Government did not fund more dredging on the Somerset Levels , it has saved tens of thousands of homes in Bridgwater and other places down stream from flooding .
    So some people say. It may not be true.

    Besides, if the government wants to turn people's homes into annual floodplains then they should a) buy their houses, and b) compensate landowners such as farmers, rather than do it by stealth.

    And humans should always be the number one priority, not wildlife.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,469
    Hugh said:

    MikeK said:

    Cameron flood warning revelation

    Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.

    It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.

    Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.

    The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.

    The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.

    The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.

    The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.

    Ha. What was I saying just yesterday? Soon as it becomes a political blame game, the buck is only going to stop in one place. The Tories made an error "going after" the Environment Agency.
    They're criticising the EA because they're the organisation that has failed. Besides, Eagle made it a political game in early January when she went after Paterson with her 'blind' jibe.

    Nasty Labour, as ever.
  • john_zims said:

    @MikeK

    '2. The major change in perception by a UKIP win in the Euros will also add to the general uncertainty.'

    The Euros are a joke election and no matter what the outcome diddly- squat is going to change and voters treat it accordingly.Whereas we are stuck for five years with the outcome of the GE in 2015 and a lot can change.

    Quite:

    Lord Ashcroft:

    Voters readily distinguish between elections that matter and those that matter less. In our research people compared European elections to the Eurovision Song Contest; some cheerfully said that voting UKIP in these elections was just a way to “give Europe a slap”. A strong UKIP performance in [the 2014 Euros] even if they were to win more seats than any other party – need not mean electoral doom for the Tories the following year.

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2012/12/the-ukip-threat-is-not-about-europe/
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    MikeK said:


    MikeK said:

    Cameron flood warning revelation



    Cameron flood warning revelation The Government was warned last summer of the danger of the Somerset Levels flooding but decided not to fund more dredging.

    It has emerged that David Cameron was approached by in August by farmers' leader Edwin White with a plea for urgent action.

    Number 10 passed the letter to a minister, Richard Benyon, who replied that he could not provide additional government funding for dredging in Somerset. Mr Cameron finally authorised the funding this week.

    The Government has also been left embarrassed over a chart said to exaggerate the amount of future investment proposed in flood defences.

    The Times reports that Sir Andrew Dilnot, head of the UK Statistics Authority, made a complaint about the chart in the National Infrastructure Plan, published with the Autumn Statement in December.

    The watchdog took the unusual step of republishing the chart using a more conventional measuring scale.

    The Daily Mail reports that ministers and the insurance industry have struck a deal which could see wealthy householders and those living in newer homes forced to pay a flood insurance levy, even though they won’t be covered by it.

    It is a good job the Government did not fund more dredging on the Somerset Levels , it has save tens of thousands of homes in Bridgwater and other places down stream from flooding .
    Really! So you admit that the Coalition -the British government - is incapable of defending all citizens equally? Shame on the government. And shame on you!
    If you live in a house on the banks of say the river Severn then you should expect it to be subject to flooding . common sense applies though clearly not to UKIP supporters such as yourself .

  • Besides, if the government wants to turn people's homes into annual floodplains then they should a) buy their houses, and b) compensate landowners such as farmers, rather than do it by stealth.

    I don't know anything about this particular valley but unless the rivers have been diverted the flood-plains presumably substantially pre-date the current owners' claims on the land. If that's right it's not obvious that the owners have a property right to flood-plain-free enjoyment of the property that requires the government to compensate them.
This discussion has been closed.