Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage’s Newark gamble: UKIP won’t score a near-miss
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage’s Newark gamble: UKIP won’t score a near-miss
To be damned if they do and damned if they don’t is the lot of politicians. Whatever decisions they take (or don’t take), one side or another will criticise them. To that end, Nigel Farage’s choice to opt out of the Newark by-election will be castigated by some as defeatist at a time when his party is surging in the polls. Had he taken the alternative option, he’d instead be called an egoist and would …
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Eastleigh and Corby were pretty interesting though I guess not for the Tories.
http://charnwood-libdems.org.uk/en/article/2013/748494/advertisement-for-parliamentary-candidate-for-newark
(Note to self: did I really write "smart" and "UKIP" in the same sentence? And I thought I was taking those pills...)
Inverclyde by-election -. Result: Lab Hold
Lab 54% (-2)
SNP 33% (+16)
Con 10% (-2)
LD 2% (-11)
UKIP 1% (n/c)
3 MEPs will be elected in Northern Ireland at the Euros.
Ladbrokes - NI seat winners
Martina Anderson (SF) 1/80
Diane Dodds (DUP) 1/12
Jim Nicholson (UUP) 4/11
Jim Allister (TUV) 2/1
Alex Attwood (SDLP) 4/1
Anna Lo (All) 16/1
Tina McKenzie (NI21) 50/1
Henry Reilly (UKIP) 50/1
Mark Brotherson (Con) 66/1
Ross Brown (Grn) 66/1
http://www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk/vote/newarkparliamentaryconstituencyby-election2014/
www.twitter.com/RobertJenrick/tweets
www.twitter.com/MichaelPayneUK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619221/The-secret-royal-pardons-IRA-terrorists-MP-attacks-cover-revealed-365-people-given-amnesties-Northern-Ireland-1979.html
Dirty deals, with hard faced men?
Nice to catch up with everyone last night at DD's
It's been twenty years since women could be ordained in the CofE, and despite dire pronouncements at the time, the CofE hasn't ended.
I hope the ladies enjoy today's celebratory procession, and I hope the people who are against women bishops are proved as wrong as those who were against women priests.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27265039
He simply doesn't have the time to do both. Delegating someone to pound the streets of Newark is the only choice he had.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100269924/eurosceptics-are-in-danger-of-losing-everything/
David Cameron could not have been more definite. “I would not continue as prime minister unless I can be absolutely guaranteed that this referendum would go ahead on an in-out basis,” he announced during a phone-in on Sunday.
He has, in other words, made a referendum on leaving the EU the one declared condition of participation in a future coalition. Not defence or taxation or the voting system: Europe.
Now you might respond by slapping your hands over your ears and shouting “Nah-nah-nah, can’t hear you”. Or you might express the same sentiment in the way that half-clever people sometimes do online do, by saying “You can’t believe a word any politician says”. You might – I sense that some of my regular commenters are already itching to do it – start talking about “Cast-Iron Dave”.
If you begin from the position that anything a politician says is a lie then, by definition, I’m not going to convince you. But I’d ask you to ponder the actions, not just the words, of Conservative Party. Every Conservative MP voted for an In/Out referendum in July. Labour and the Lib Dems, having tried to talk the Bill out, were too cowardly to vote against it in the Commons, instead killing it off quietly in the Lords. But if a Conservative MP comes high enough in the next Private Member’s Bill ballot, the legislation will be reintroduced and, if necessary, subjected to the Parliament Act.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/8cm4ggnrez/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-290414.pdf
On patriotism and parties, isn't it a bit like religion? - one can feel one's choice is the best for the society around one, while acknowledging that others may have a legitimate different view. It's only when confidence of being right blurs into the conclusion that people who think differently are unpatriotic that it turns noxious. What's distressing about the Ukraine is that people who are normally pleasant and civilised suddenly get seized with the idea that it's vital to belong to one country and reject another and anyone who disagrees should be killed. We have our faults but at least we're a long way from that - the Indyref is for all the squabbling not stirring up real hatred.
They are complaining that as atheists they do not want to go to a catholic school.
Should they have that right?
Then again, I think schools should be entirely non religious. Much like I think life should be.
Too many generals there, not enough soldiers!
Drinks last night with one of my oldest friends. He's a former Thatcher voter turned Tory hater, went Lib Dem last time and is now swung behind Labour (he's a teacher, it had to happen eventually). Moribund about Miliband sums up his mood, which make me chuckle being the caring sort of pal I am.
However, we got on to the Faragasm and in/out referendum. He's all in favour because he doesn't think the genuine arguments for and against membership have ever been put 'out there' when everyone is listening with a decision to make. He also thinks out would probably win, even though he is an innie. Struck me as interesting, the desire to have the debate properly aired an decided upon even though the result may not be the one wanted. I am wondering how much of a feeling there is in the parties of the centre left, amongst normal members and voters, to see the debate aired and a decision taken and could this, in part, be some of the protest/movement behind UKIP?
And whilst we are on anecdotal evidence, Green Party posters in leafy village of Frettenham to the NE of Norwich, it's more shocking than seeing giant Labour posters in farmers fields in 1997! The Greens will do quite well in the locals round here, but they are going backwards in Norwich South.
Dyedwoolie sign off prediction, Labour will gain more than the Tories in 2015, but there WILL be some Labour losses to Tory.
Given that the overwhelming majority disagree with you, why don't you reconsider your own position?
And did you miss iSam - the coolest bloke there and Quincel (the guy with the silly hat)?!
P.S. "Tom" is wee Corporeal. Oh and 'Ave-it was there (but probably had been sedated prior)!
That only leaves us to find out the following:
# Who was the bumpcious Lib-Dhimmie lass, and
# Was that miserable loner in a suit-and-tie really "who-we-think-he-was"...?
But so does UKIP. Things like the 70% of laws made in Brussels; see yesterday's More or Less on Radio 4 for a fisking of that. It's also a sad exaggeration, as there is a point to be made there. But lying is not the way to make it.
Why don't you apply the same standards to your team as the opposition?
EDIT I liked the hat too.
Sam was definitely the coolest guy there.I remembered the guy with the hat but didn`t know he was Quincel.I left at 9 so must have missed the lass!Are you talking about the guy in the pin-stripes?
Sven goes for the "Gran'pa Samuel Miliband" defence. Let us all pretend to ignore the significance of the Battle of Warsaw (1919) and condemn people who wish to throw-off the yolk of serfdom and socialism...!
:[MODERATED]:
http://vimeo.com/86013794
Edit:
Ah, an admission of guilt from master antifrank: Nice to see you sir!
I personally like the Swiss system and think we could reasonably introduce it at least on a consultative basis - if there is a strong feeling out there that we should do Y (e.g. the death penalty), even if I favour X I'd accept that we ought to debate it, consider Y, and if necessary explain why we prefer X.
But it does need a referendum culture, which means extensive pro and con information provided to all voters with their voting cards and a general tradition that voters look at every issue on its merits. With our system of occasional referenda, the risk is that not-very-engaged people vote in accordance with whether they're pissed off at the moment with whoever happens to be in power, and suddenly something massive has been decided. The fact that polls say that Scots' Indyref intentions are strongly influenced by who they think will win the next GE is an example.
I think it's reasonable for politicians to be wary of offering referenda on that basis if they feel that one outcome would be catastrophic. All British parties have a tradition of offering referenda as a political move to pacify critics (SeanT likes to retail my own wavering on this), but usually only really do them when they're sure they'll get a result that they feel isn't a disaster. Perhaps making consultative referenda more common would be a way to build a culture which could risk regular binding referenda?
Sorry not to have made it last night - been a brutal week so headed home early
How could I possibly sleep until JohnO posts to let us know where he spent the night?
I have no particular issues with europe deciding for all countries on medicines and licenses. Indeed it seems in the interests of everyone that this is done in a professional way for all countries. Ditto most trade regulation.
Westminster is not noted for the quality of its legislation. (student fees anyone?) So I have no problem with the EU deciding the majority of laws affecting us. Indeed the quality of the debatesin Brussells is usually more civilised and intelligent than the braying packs of PPE educated SPADS that sit on the Commons benches. I agree that there are scoundrels (such as most 2009 kipper MEPs) in Brussells, but they tend to not bother turning up to vote, or are marginalised by the more sensible groupings.
Hannans article is interesting. I think the hyperbole of UKIP may well lose a Britexit referendum. I certainly hope so!
For those who have not had the pleasure can I recommend a conversation with smookie. For a Labour voter he is extremely articulate, intelligent and tolerant (as he put up with me for God-knows-how-long): Absolute gem of a chap!
Exile to Belfast is the only appropriate punishment.
Even if I could be a 100% sure Cameron would hold a referendum that is only a small part of the equation of deciding to vote for him to win, the other being do I think such a referendum would stand a reasonable chance to be won for the exit side.
A conservative led referendum in 2017 I am not convinced fulfils the second part of this equation on the grounds that we would have all 3 main parties, the bbc and a lot of main stream media campaigning on the In side all financed by bucket loads of cash from the EU. This would be a campaign that made the David and Goliath match look almost a fair fight.
Given that and the fact the only reason they think people like myself should vote conservative is "otherwise Milibrand will get in" and frankly I think the current Tory party is just as bad as Milibrands labour party then I see little reason to vote conservative.
They also make out that If people do not vote Conservative it will be their fault that Labour gets in. Frankly thats shadow chancellors. If people don't vote conservative in sufficient numbers to get elected that is the fault of the conservative party for not being electable and no one else.
(note I am not a ukip supporter, nor have I as ever yet voted ukip. While I support EU exit it is for far different reasons than most UKIP supporters)
I`ll visit Belfast and see what it`s like.If I ever choose Belfast,you are to blame!
FPT:
" http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/02/holyrood-power-end-bedroom-tax-scotland
Was this giving the Yes the boost ? If the "bedroom tax" is such a good thing, why devolve now ?"
I presume this was to try and kill a particular factor which was especially sore with the Labour voting demographic, which - I also presume - disproportionately contains people on housing benefit.
All that is being handed over is the power to spend out of the existing pot of money. The Scots won't be given any of the dole clawed back by Westminster. However, given the lack of small houses and indeed newish housing in the social sector, the bedroom tax risks a rise in homelessness and rent default and problems for social housing agencies, which would cost Scottish and local gmt dear, and there is some fiscal sense at least in the short term, till we know the longer term situation come September 19.
The article states that it is the LDs who demanded this move. In one sense it is a very small step to devo-a-minimum-extra and something of a poisoned bait for the Scottish government. On the other hand, I'm actually as surprised as you are, as one would have thought that IDS would be only too happy to see the effects of one of his flagship policies on The Glasgow schemes where he was so publicly filmed. It is an admission that Scotland is diverging even more from EWNI in social policy, or perhaps it is the other way round, and I'll be interested to see how this is portrayed in the London media.
I thought it made some good points, not the least of which is that such questions depend on definition.
And from FullFact:
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_laws_70_per_cent-29589
I did watch it, and I disagree with you. Read the above link for clarification.
Besides, it's hardly evidence, is it? Hanging one of UKIP's major claims on such flimsy 'evidence' is rather pathetic. Where's your hard and fast evidence, the figures behind the claim?
Just to help you:
https://fullfact.org/factchecks/proportion_of_uk_law_made_by_eu-3073
As I said below, there's an issue to be discussed here. Basing your argument on such flimsy 'evidence' will not lead to a helpful discussion.
UKIP supporters say it's better than the other parties. On the basis of this discussion, it is just as liable to distort fact for their own ends.
It seems cider paves the way to peace. Does perry/pear cider work too?
http://www.matthewjgoodwin.com/
First article is a good description of the failure to deal with UKIP by the media and other parties, and how their current approach merely drives/reinforces UKIP support
'A conservative led referendum in 2017 I am not convinced fulfils the second part of this equation on the grounds that we would have all 3 main parties, the bbc and a lot of main stream media campaigning on the In side all financed by bucket loads of cash from the EU.'
And if a referendum is held in 5 or 10 years time you think that will actually change?
UKIP know that whatever the result of a referendum is,it will be the end of UKIP and the end of the gravy train for Farage & co, so any excuse for delaying it will do.
To a large extent, I'm with Antifrank here, the political class must trust the electorate for that trust to ebb back the other way, which it hasn't since the 70s or before.
And there is a Machiavellian streak in me, if the electorate choose to kick the top dogs and end up worse off because if it, so be it. It is the price of democracy, one which we need to relearn. The 31% that stayed blue in 97 despite the woeful Major government (I voted for Jimmy Goldsmith for my shame) could see what would happen under (not so new) Labour, by 2001 it was too late, we had sown the seeds of our own misery. Now, most can't be bothered. Perhaps a freak result in 2015 will rue engage people to vote with their heads, not their tempers, but we will pay for the lesson.
That's my biggest gripe with AL Blair, he destroyed politics and engagement. That's before everything he did to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not often I actively hate someone, but he was and remains a truly insidious individual. Brown was a breath of fresh air in comparison, but suffered from chronic incompetence.
Was nice to put some faces to names
Wasn't the pinstripe suit bloke called Eric? Erik the Lurker!
Fluffy easier to understand in person even if half cut!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthancockmp/12-surprising-facts-about-britain-lumx
"..I do not know if is is 80%, or if it is now 75%. The truth is that most laws which are applied and executed, implemented at national level are based on European laws, directives, which then have to be translated into national laws. So the most, the biggest part of the legislation which is applied in a given member state is decided by the European Parliament in co-decision with the Council of European ministers."
Mr Hannan then referred to a study by the German government which attributed 84% of (German) national laws to the EU.
www.vimeo.com/86013794
If you would prefer to use a lower figure then:
"...The British Government estimates that around 50% of UK legislation with a significant economic impact originates from EU legislation.
Estimates of the proportion of national laws based on EU laws vary widely in other EU Member States, ranging from 6.3% to 84%. However, there is no totally accurate, rational or useful way of calculating the percentage of national laws based on or influenced by the EU."
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62.pdf
But Ms Reding is a credible source for UKIP to use.
That is very reassuring to hear - don't get me wrong, I love the guys 'unique' take on the world and the way he expresses it , however, occasionally one feels it would be useful along with the comment, to have a link to appropriate dictionary.
We keep on being told that UKIP is different. This sort of things shows that they're just the same as the other parties.
Below is a link to the HoC's briefing paper. I haven't had a chance to re-read this yet, but Appendix 1 might be a good place to study:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62/how-much-legislation-comes-from-europe
And this point about Norway should also be noted:
'A referendum held with the Tory officially party backing Brexit would certainly have a lot more chance of succeeding than one being run on a series of lies and misinformation from Cameron.'
Nah, your kidding yourself another excuse would be found,Farage & co are firmly part of the political establishment and love the gravy train.
Farage even boasted about how he had troughed £2 million in expenses.
Con ........ 306
Lab ........ 286
LibDem .... 30
Other ....... 28
Total ...... 650
On this basis, the Tories are 20 seats short of winning an absolute majority ...... one can but dream!
From:
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_laws_70_per_cent-29589 I've given enough links to documents on this, rather than the misinterpreted anecdata you cling to.
And your 84% is from the frontispiece to that document, which is outlining the problem, rather than a dissection of the figures.
And your 84% is from the frontispiece to that document, which is outlining the problem, rather than a dissection of the figures.You will of course have noticed that the Full fact website is referring to a different statement by Ms Reding.
Your quote concerning Norway is a wonderful piece of misdirection. I doubt there is a single civil servant in the UK who could not claim that they were effected 'to some extent' by the EU. That is in no way comparable with the amount of law and regulation they are subjected to. Even if they only had to take into account one piece of EU derived legislation per year they would still be affected 'to some extent'.
There is certainly plenty of acceptable evidence to show that a 70% figure is a reasonable estimate. So the accusation you made of 'lies' is clearly proven false.
Of course the real question is why we should accept 50%, 20%, 5% or 1% of laws and regulations being decided by the EU.