Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Same sex marriage and the Tories. Interactive chart showin

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited May 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Same sex marriage and the Tories. Interactive chart showing how those who remain respond differently than GE2010 CON voters

Just look at how 2010 CON voters view the same sex marriage issue compared with those who now say they are voting for the party. The first group show by 53% to 39% that they are against.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    How does attitude to immigration vary between 2010 Con voters, and current Con voters? That's an issue on which people trust UKIP more than Conservatives, and seems more likely to drive voting intention.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    @anotherDave

    There is a small difference between Con2010 voters and current Con voters on Europe and immigration, but Mike is right to pick up on gay marriage - probably the biggest single reason why Conservatives are switching to Ukip. But if the party wants to be electable in 20 years it can't be on the wrong side of the argument.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest up the ARSE projection on legalizing same sex hair pieces :

    Support - 57% .. Oppose 33% .. Don't Know 10%

    ARSE interviewed 1237 Bedford voters on 11 May 2013
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    How well or badly is the government handling immigration? (Net well)

    Con -31
    Ukip -92
    C10 -51
    Total -60

    Would vote to remain in the EU on the new terms [after renegotiation]

    Con 51%
    Ukip 16%
    C10 41%
    Total 45%
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013
    Millsy said:

    @anotherDave

    There is a small difference between Con2010 voters and current Con voters on Europe and immigration, but Mike is right to pick up on gay marriage - probably the biggest single reason why Conservatives are switching to Ukip. But if the party wants to be electable in 20 years it can't be on the wrong side of the argument.

    Every profile of UKIP voters has immigration/economy as their most important issue. Gay marriage is a long way down the list.

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/03/immigration-and-europe-give-ukip-appeal/

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/6715

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Derby fire deaths: Philpott children remembered a year on

    Six children killed by a house fire in Derby will be remembered in a church service and at a community event later.

    Mick and Mairead Philpott, the parents of the children, were jailed last month for manslaughter, together with their friend Paul Mosley.

    Six white doves will be released as part of a community day at Osmaston Park, held a year to the day since five of the children died.

    The church service at St George's Catholic Church starts at 18:30 BST.

    It will be given by Father Alan Burbidge, who conducted the children's funerals.

    "The children are to be well remembered but also we want to pray for everybody of the extended family and those still grieving, the older children and the grandparents," he said.

    A group of relatives and friends, including Mairead Philpott's father and Paul Mosley's brother, started walking from Skegness on Tuesday and are due to arrive back in Derby for the Osmaston Park event.

    They have been raising money for Catch Me When I Fall, a fund which has been set up to raise money for ill children.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-22486040
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Millsy said:

    How well or badly is the government handling immigration? (Net well)

    Con -31
    Ukip -92
    C10 -51
    Total -60

    I think that supports immigration being the main driver for Con>UKIP switchers.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Millsy said:

    How well or badly is the government handling immigration? (Net well)

    Con -31
    Ukip -92
    C10 -51
    Total -60

    Would vote to remain in the EU on the new terms [after renegotiation]

    Con 51%
    Ukip 16%
    C10 41%
    Total 45%

    So 1/6 of UKIP voters, about 3% of the population, would vote to stay in. Nowt queerer than folk.

    I suspect gay marriage is way down the list and will only feature in the grievances of the already agrieved.

    Is it UKIP policy to have an EU referendum? Or would a UKIP govt consider that yhey had a mandate without referendum for withdrawal?
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    The UKIP like other many other parties is just pure identity politics. The "We" vs "Not we".

    The urban tory party of the present leadership simply fails the "people like us" sniff test for the older rural traditional tory voter.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    A damaging split has opened in Ed Miliband’s top team over a controversial plan to commit Labour to renationalise the railways.

    Shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle, who has repeatedly attacked the ‘fragmentation’ of the current train system, is understood to be spearheading the move.

    But Labour Left-wingers say the idea is being ‘stifled’ by Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls on the grounds that the party should not make potentially costly spending commitments two years away from the next General Election.

    One senior Labour MP said: ‘Maria is simply trying to float the plan for discussion, Balls is trying to kill it off at birth. But how are we going to convince the voters if we don’t have any firm policies?’

    However, others warned that nationalising the railways was a ‘multi-billion-pound plan’ that Mr Balls was right to block.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323069/Labour-split-rail-nationalisation-plan-Left-wing-plot-spend-billions-bringing-network-public-ownership.html#ixzz2T3nyfeZq
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    @anotherDave

    There's not a huge difference between current and former Con voters on those "most important issues" questions
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,118
    edited May 2013
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. OblitusSumMe, I'm sorry to hear about your past situation. Hopefully things are rather better now.

    On democracy, I'd suspect that monarchy (either in an absolutist form or backed up by a strong oligarchy/aristocracy) is less liable to collapse as a system. When one monarch gets axed the new one would rather wear a crown than proclaim himself an equal citizen. Similarly, when democracies did form in the past they might be prone to falling under the sway of a powerful single leader who became an effective king.

    I'm not all that up on the French Revolution, but isn't that basically what happened from the axing of Louis to the coronation of Napoleon?

    Rome, of course, lasted for a long time as a republic *after* getting rid of Tarquin Superbus, but eventually it did succumb to personality politics and drift into becoming an empire.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Well OGH was quite right to point out that a referendum on Europe was an issue that voters just don't care about

    @MSmithsonPB: 62% tell YouGov S Times poll that there should be a referendum on EU, with vast majority saying it should be held before GE2015

    Oh
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    We know why the Tories headlined on gay marriage, it was Osbornes Master Strategy of detoxification he brought back from the US election.

    It's far simpler than that, dear boy.

    They support it because it's the right thing to do.

    Shame you need to look for political advantage in every decision
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Millsy said:

    @anotherDave

    There's not a huge difference between current and former Con voters on those "most important issues" questions

    Perhaps the difference is in whether they think the current gov't are doing a good job on those issues?

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    We know why the Tories headlined on gay marriage, it was Osbornes Master Strategy of detoxification he brought back from the US election.

    It's far simpler than that, dear boy.

    They support it because it's the right thing to do.

    Shame you need to look for political advantage in every decision
    So, when did it become "the right thing to do " ? Before that , it was the wrong thing to do ?

    This is, of course, the party of clause 28. Always behind the curve !
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    We know why the Tories headlined on gay marriage, it was Osbornes Master Strategy of detoxification he brought back from the US election.

    It's far simpler than that, dear boy.

    They support it because it's the right thing to do.

    Shame you need to look for political advantage in every decision
    There are no additional legal rights being debated. Labour did that with their Civil Partnerships law.

    "For all their symbolic power, the gay marriage proposals would be a tiny and almost irrelevant step. In America, the battle is about the vast number of legal rights – 1,138 of them by one count – that are conferred on married couples but not those in same-sex partnerships. In Britain, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 granted all the rights of a married couple to anyone who registered for such a union. "

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9257301/Gay-marriage-importing-Americas-culture-wars-has-backfired-on-David-Cameron.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,118
    Mr. Surbiton, how can the Conservatives be behind the curve if they introduced gay marriage, which Labour didn't in 13 years?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Millsy said:

    @anotherDave

    There is a small difference between Con2010 voters and current Con voters on Europe and immigration, but Mike is right to pick up on gay marriage - probably the biggest single reason why Conservatives are switching to Ukip. But if the party wants to be electable in 20 years it can't be on the wrong side of the argument.

    I suppose from Cameron's point of view, he is between a rock and a hard place. So, better to de-toxify with two years to go, than later.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013

    Millsy said:

    How well or badly is the government handling immigration? (Net well)

    Con -31
    Ukip -92
    C10 -51
    Total -60

    Would vote to remain in the EU on the new terms [after renegotiation]

    Con 51%
    Ukip 16%
    C10 41%
    Total 45%

    Is it UKIP policy to have an EU referendum? Or would a UKIP govt consider that they had a mandate without referendum for withdrawal?
    From UKIP's website:
    8. UKIP would withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Convention on Refugees. This would enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable. UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations.

    None of these policies can be implemented while Britain is still a member of the European Union, and that is just one of the reasons why UKIP policy is to leave the European Union.
    http://www.ukip.org/index.php/issues/policy-pages/immigration

    So it seems that a vote for UKIP is a vote to leave the EU. No referendum req.

    EDIT
    I spoke too soon:
    • The British people must decide through an immediate referendum if we stay in the EU or to come out and claw back independent power over our national life.
    http://www.ukip.org/index.php/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Mr. Surbiton, how can the Conservatives be behind the curve if they introduced gay marriage, which Labour didn't in 13 years?

    Labour introduced Civil Partnership which the Tories OPPOSED and was the first step towards Gay marriage. I believe we were the first western democracy to legalise civil partnership.

    Are you saying the Tories did not introduce clause 28 ?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,118
    I'm saying that stating the Conservatives are *always* behind the curve when presented with an example which, in your terms, clearly disproves it is ridiculous.

    Then again, I'm reminded of sage advice on the previous thread.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013

    The UKIP like other many other parties is just pure identity politics. The "We" vs "Not we".

    The urban tory party of the present leadership simply fails the "people like us" sniff test for the older rural traditional tory voter.

    The UKIP voter profile is surely more 'poor voter', urban and rural?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,118
    F1: just over 4 hours to the Spanish Grand Prix. The run to the start is amongst the longest on the calendar, so if you start well you can gain many places, but if you leave the handbrake on (Webber) you could get swamped right at the start.

    I don't expect the Mercedes to have a bad start, but they're clearly concerned about lack of race pace through eating the tyres. I hope they're genuinely worried and this isn't just a cunning ploy to lull their rivals into a sense of false security:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22493986

    Vettel, Raikkonen and Alonso is the order of the title race, and also 3rd, 4th and 5th on the grid tomorrow. So, that should be set up nicely. Perez starts 6th (Massa got a 3 place penalty for impeding Webber during qualifying) and it'll be interesting to see how the Mexican can do.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,702
    I am sure this is just simplistic and naive but is it not possible that some tories have been persuaded by Cameron's arguments on this and changed their mind?

    Despite the nonsense over Europe tories are a fairly loyal bunch as a whole and are inclined to follow their leader.

    For me, the rise in UKIP is simply the reflection of not having a credible opposition party that any sane person would want to support. Those who have been hurt and frustrated by the long recession know Labour are not the answer and they seek an alternative. No doubt some might justify that decision by reference to gay marriage or immigration policies (despite the government's successes in that area) or even the EU but to say that is why they are now with the NOTA, sorry UKIP, party is to confuse cause and effect.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 23,036
    Some impressive faux outrage by tim about the bedroom tax.

    The same tim who supports unlimited low skilled immigration and higher population densities.

    There wouldn't be many spare bedrooms for the poor under those circumstances.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 23,036

    The UKIP like other many other parties is just pure identity politics. The "We" vs "Not we".

    The urban tory party of the present leadership simply fails the "people like us" sniff test for the older rural traditional tory voter.

    The UKIP voter profile is surely more 'poor voter', urban and rural?

    UKIP will do better among the 'middle third' than among the poor. That's the group who are losing out to globalisation and the greater wealth divides which it brings.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013
    D'ancona:
    "Cameron’s best line is that Britain is in a “global race”. It is getting harder with each passing month to argue that our membership of the EU is a help, rather than a hindrance to our performance in that contest."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/10050591/An-EU-referendum-is-the-political-mouse-that-roared.html

    Are the SDP-Cameroons moving towards Better Off Out?!!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 43,702
    @Tim

    I think it does. These grumpy older men are disproportionately victims of the recession since 2008. They have been forced into early retirement, their limited skills have not been valued and their wages have fallen in real terms. As they don't have such large mortgages they have not been compensated by lower mortgage rates and they have seen their standard of living falling. They see their children struggling to get jobs and housing and blame immigration.

    Above all, and we see it on here daily, as a group they think that there should be some simple answers to the complex problems the government faces and that if they were just a bit more like Maggie (as they imagine her rather than the more complex reality) this would have all been sorted by now. Think of the viewpoint of a Alanbrooke without the intelligence or knowledge.

  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    @anotherDave

    The bottom line is that there aren't many Conservatives who are now voting Ukip simply because of immigration or Europe (or even gay marriage, but to less extent).

    And that's aside from the point that only about 50% of Ukip voters are C10 voters - which is nationwide polling. In actual elections like Eastleigh, South Shields and the recent county councils there's a different story.

    Those Conservative voters who are currently protesting about what the government is or isn't doing will be easiest to win back. We need to distinguish these from Ukip's voters who are voting because of their policies (very few) and the other protestors who dislike all other parties because they're part of the out of touch elite (which now includes the Lib Dems).

    One final set of numbers. Most important issues facing the country/you and your family. No huge differences, considering the number of voters the party has lost.

    Immigration
    All 57/17
    Con 68/24
    C10 73/26
    Ukip 90/38

    Europe
    All 21/10
    Con 33/14
    C10 34/16
    Ukip 49/28
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013
    Millsy said:


    Those Conservative voters who are currently protesting about what the government is or isn't doing will be easiest to win back.

    How? Immigration is the big driver, and HMG is not going to do anything to stop the next wave of east european immigration.

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/pressReleases#352
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276

    The UKIP voter profile is surely more 'poor voter', urban and rural?



    No, I don't think so. They are taking 2 votes from the Tories for each one they take from Labour.

    It's a party mostly of the non urban middle classes. The people that look at Cameron and don't think he's "One of us", it's the people that visit London and look around in bewilderment, feeling like they are overseas.

    It's the party of those that want to "take back their country"

    I think they are doomed to fail, but that's another discussion
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    The UKIP like other many other parties is just pure identity politics. The "We" vs "Not we".

    The urban tory party of the present leadership simply fails the "people like us" sniff test for the older rural traditional tory voter.

    The UKIP voter profile is surely more 'poor voter', urban and rural?

    UKIP will do better among the 'middle third' than among the poor. That's the group who are losing out to globalisation and the greater wealth divides which it brings.
    YouGov today>

    UKIP support:

    12% of ABC1
    21% of C2DE
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013

    The UKIP voter profile is surely more 'poor voter', urban and rural?

    They are taking 2 votes from the Tories for each one they take from Labour.
    2 _2010_ votes. It's important to remember that 2010 was a very bad year for Labour, so many Labour voters/sympathisers among UKIP supporters are not identified as such.

    Scratch that. You're right, they're taking votes from current Con more than current Lab.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    One of Britain's wealthiest hedge fund managers, a music producer who is a close friend of Robbie Williams, and a successful author can all be named today as donors to the Hacked Off campaign.

    Arpad Busson, whose personal fortune is estimated at £145m, donated £20,000 to the group which is campaigning for new press laws. Other donors include Guy Chambers, a producer for former Take That singer Williams, and the science writer and TV producer Simon Singh, the Observer has discovered.

    Hacked Off, which sat in on late-night talks at Ed Miliband's Commons office when the royal charter on newspaper regulation was agreed by the three political parties, refuses to reveal its donors.

    On its website, the only funding it discloses is a £50,000 grant during 2012-13 from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and more than £20,000 it says it is due to receive from the Journalism Foundation, a charitable body set up by the owners of The Independent newspapers.

    The site also says that actor Hugh Grant will be passing on the damages he receives from his legal action against News International for hacking his mobile phone voicemails.

    Last week heiress Jemima Khan confirmed that she had donated £5,000 to the group.

    Busson, who had two children with model Elle Macpherson and is married to the actress Uma Thurman, gave £20,000, according to a well-placed source. The French-born financier, who founded the Ark academy of schools, did not respond to queries, but he is understood to have long been a keen supporter of the goals of the group, fronted by Grant.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/11/
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 23,036
    tim said:

    @anotherrichard

    I thought you supported Thatchers policy of free movement of labour and capital in the EU.

    Within the EU of Thatcher's time I would. The extension of it to countries with much lower living standards inevitably leads to large scale inward migration.

    The inevitable consequences of which are downward pressure on wages, upward pressure on house prices, higher population densities in poorer areas and a more unequal society.

    I would have unlimited immigration for anyone able to earn £1000 per week.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,118
    Mr. Financier, in the defence of Miss Khan it would seem she's getting better value for money with her Hacked Off donation than the bail of Julian Assange.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 23,036
    Financier said:

    The UKIP like other many other parties is just pure identity politics. The "We" vs "Not we".

    The urban tory party of the present leadership simply fails the "people like us" sniff test for the older rural traditional tory voter.

    The UKIP voter profile is surely more 'poor voter', urban and rural?

    UKIP will do better among the 'middle third' than among the poor. That's the group who are losing out to globalisation and the greater wealth divides which it brings.
    YouGov today>

    UKIP support:

    12% of ABC1
    21% of C2DE
    Are you suggesting C2s are among the poor ?

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,384
    Only a small number of voters IMO care passionately about gay marriage, but UKIP voters see it as a really good example - a marker issue - of what they dislike about modern trends and the willingness of Conservatives and the other main parties to go along with them. Unlike the complexities of the EU vs the EEA or different kinds of migration, it's something that can be stated in one sentence and instantly understood.

    Fraser Nelson's interesting piece underplays the opposition to civil partnerships, though. As an MP at the time I was strongly lobbied against by religious constituents who saw it as the thin end of the wedge to gay marriage - and they were of course factually correct, as it turns out. Gay adoption, now seen as almost entirely uncontroversial, was also a big flashpoint, with a good many people seeing it as leading, if not directly to abuse, at least to encouragement of children to "become gay". I felt at the time that was being quite brave in resisting all this, and I'm pleasantly surprised by how swiftly opinion has changed. But UKIP voters are presumably dismayed.

    As someone noted recently, it misses the point about UKIP to describe it as racist - it isn't the driving force behind most UKIP votuing. What it is is reactionary, in the literal sense of reacting against changes in society. Ethnic changes are another example for them of modern undesirable trends.

    I don't think that parties that are essentially comfortable with modern society can really compromise on any of this without being seen through as transparent hypocrites. We should be willing to sympathise with rather than condemn people who are upset by rapid social change around them. But it's cynical and wrong to pretend we can or will reverse it.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 23,036
    tim said:

    @anotherrichard

    I don't think wages in Greece Portugal and Spain were very high when they joined.

    They weren't but nor did we get a million Greeks, Portugese and Spanish move to the UK afterwards.
    tim said:

    @anotherrichard

    Your proposal involves leaving the EU.

    The EU is ultimately moving towards a single state and government, this country wont join that so at some point we will leave.

    Now that might occur with some decisive break of the UK leaving or it might be a slow process of the EU becoming more centralized but excluding us. Either way its going to happen, maybe within 5 years of maybe within 50. Only the manner and timescale are still to be decided.
  • @Tim "Oh god Gove is going on about Hitler and Mr Men again.
    He clearly hasn't bothered to even look at what he's rambling about "

    Oh the irony from someone with 2886 posts and counting - and that's just since vanilla came in!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758


    Gay adoption, now seen as almost entirely uncontroversial, was also a big flashpoint

    Shame that Labour felt it was important to put enough pressure on the Catholic adoption service that large parts of it closed their doors.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,352
    tim said:

    @davidL

    Pensioners have been protected, they are the core of Osborne whole re election strategy.
    That's why developing a strategy based on ramping up immigration, where the Toires can never out UKIP UKIP, and using gay marriage as a flagship detox strategy was such a bloody stupid combination.

    For all that I dislike Dave on a lot of issues I really don't think it is fair to characterise his moves on gay marriage as an overt part of a detox policy. It was one point which he strongly believed in and which he decided to go with against the wishes of a significant proportion of his own party knowing it would cost him members. It is one of the policies where I, even as a UKIP supporter think he was absolutely right and is one of those rare occasions when a politician has made the country a better place to live in. I get a similar feeling every time I see another US state has legalised gay marriage. It is a sign of progress, of a mature and 'right-minded' polity.

    I am only sorry that in this instance I agree with Mike in that it does account for some of the increase in UKIP support (as I surmised several weeks ago).
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    tim said:


    James Chapman (Mail) ‏@jameschappers 1m
    Uh-oh. Gove claims Clegg only dumped on childcare to appease activists because Oakeshott leading campaign to have him replaced with Cable

    Drama ahead? LD leadership contest? Excellent!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,895
    edited May 2013
    It seems to me that UKIP's vote is generally from people who generally do not like the way the UK has developed. And it is undeniably a very different country to the one it was 30 years ago, let alone 50. It is pretty clear, and understandable, that quite a few people - especially older ones - are going to regret that. People always have mourned the loss of what was and the passing of time. But that also makes it hard for the Tories to fight on UKIP's ground. It's not about policies for many UKIP voters, it's about feeling you have lost your country. And at a time of great economic uncertainty, rising prices, stagnating incomes and the rest of it, those feelings are exacerbated. You could repeal gay marriage tomorrow, but gay people and lifestyles would still be more prominent than they once were. You could end all immigration, but the country would still be much more multi-ethnic. No political party can take the UK back to how it once was and the Tories under Cameron have made it clear where they stand on social reform. The Tories best bet is the economy - not the theoretical one of inflation, GDP and employment figures, but the real one of fuel, utility, food and transport prices, disposable household incomes and job security. Trying to out UKIP is pointless. It's about proving the Tories can deliver a decent future, not one that works for a small minority while the rest are left behind.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013
    "NIGEL Farage is on the brink of delivering EIGHT UKIP MPs at the next election."

    Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4924195/UKIP-to-win-8-Tory-seats-at-the-next-General-Election-in-2015.html

    https://twitter.com/DamianSurvation/status/333492721664811008

    EDIT
    Could UKIP topple Messrs Cameron and Osborne at the next election? That would be well worth staying up for. :-)

    Tatton
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/tatton/

    Witney
    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/witney/
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,815
    O/T. Good news for the pro-Scottish Independence campaign.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22495174
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited May 2013
    tim said:

    Charles said:


    Gay adoption, now seen as almost entirely uncontroversial, was also a big flashpoint

    Shame that Labour felt it was important to put enough pressure on the Catholic adoption service that large parts of it closed their doors.

    Have they?
    How many of them shut?

    Of course you could argue that pubs and clubs should be able to turn away black people and complain that some may close if they had to obey the law by your logic
    No, because the colour of one's skin has nothing to do with religion, and the adoption agencies had paired up with nearby agencies that had no problem with gay adoption.

    With adoption, the important thing is that kids find good permanent families as quickly as possible. Personally I believe that whether the parents are gay or straight has no bearing on whether they will be good parents or not. But kids don't benefit from reducing the number of people helping them, especially as the Catholic agencies typically specialised in the more difficult kids to place

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/01/24/catholic-charities-at-risk-after-adoption-agency-ruled-to-be-discriminating

    [eliminating charity status would be very significant]

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/26/catholic-adoption-agency-gay-lesbian

    [last sentence: while some have closed, others have severed their links with the catholic church. Either way you are driving people who were helping out of providing a much needed service]

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,384
    Charles said:


    Gay adoption, now seen as almost entirely uncontroversial, was also a big flashpoint

    Shame that Labour felt it was important to put enough pressure on the Catholic adoption service that large parts of it closed their doors.
    I'm not sure the effect was that large (citation?), but even if it was, I don't think it was an issue we could or should have wriggled away from. Like B&Bs refusing gay or black or Irish people, the existence of such open barriers in any kind of public service or trade contributes to making the group concerned feel excluded. I'm not in favour of forcing churches to bless gay marriages as that's an internal matter, but church adoption agencies purport to be providing a non-religious public service, and introduce religion-based barriers is as unacceptable as a homelessness charity that required homeless people to pray before being admitted.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:


    James Chapman (Mail) ‏@jameschappers 1m
    Uh-oh. Gove claims Clegg only dumped on childcare to appease activists because Oakeshott leading campaign to have him replaced with Cable

    Drama ahead? LD leadership contest? Excellent!
    Won't do Clegg much harm, Gove is so despised among the Lib Dems, and the best recruiting sergeant for Labour canvassers trying to persuade Lib Dems to vote tactically.

    I'd expect Clegg to say that the childcare position he takes is due solely to the research and consultations, as opposed to the half baked Tory theories.

    The point is that a LD leadership contest is on the cards.

    EDIT
    Also presumably a break up of the coalition. Double-drama!
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    We should be willing to sympathise with rather than condemn people who are upset by rapid social change around them.

    Typical patronising Labour contempt and sneering.

    I don't need your pity that I still don't like the idea that innocent, vulnerable children can be forced into unnatural adoption situations. I don't like being told "and they were of course factually correct, as it turns out" as if I was right by accident. I don't appreciate being preached at and having my morals dictated to me.

    "it misses the point about UKIP to describe it as racist - it isn't the driving force behind most UKIP votuing(sic)." Misses the point? Most? What point are you trying to make here, Mr Woolas?

    I felt at the time that was being quite brave in resisting all this Nice to know you felt brave. [swoon] My hero. How ever did you cope with the pressure? Diddums. Here, have a lollipop.

  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,815
    tim said:

    Bizarre argument from Gove that Clegg's position on childcare ratios is a response to a Cable leadership campaign.

    Has he been drinking?

    James Chapman (Mail) ‏@jameschappers 1m
    Uh-oh. Gove claims Clegg only dumped on childcare to appease activists because Oakeshott leading campaign to have him replaced with Cable

    Gove is hated by Lib Dem activists more than any other human being on the planet (except perhaps Bashar Assad, although that would go to extra time)

    My dislike for Gove is less than my dislike for Pickles.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Grade Social class Chief income earner's occupation
    A upper middle class Higher managerial, administrative or professional
    B middle class Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional
    C1 lower middle class Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional
    C2 skilled working class Skilled manual workers
    D working class Semi and unskilled manual workers
    E Those at the lowest levels of subsistence Casual or lowest grade workers, pensioners and others who depend on the welfare state for their income

    The grades are often grouped into ABC1 and C2DE and these are taken to equate to middle class and working class respectively. Only around 2% of the UK population is identified as upper class,[3] and this group is not included in the classification scheme.

    Source: NRS

    Social Class Splits 2012:

    Class: Men % Of Total: Women % of Total: Class Total

    AB: 13.2% 12.6% 25.8%
    C1 15.4% 14.0% 29.4%
    C2 9.5% 10.5% 20.0%
    DE 9.9% 14.7% 24.6%

    Source: www.evolution-insights.com
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,895
    tim said:

    Oh god Gove is going on about Hitler and Mr Men again.
    He clearly hasn't bothered to even look at what he's rambling about

    Gove knows he is talking nonsense. He also knows certain papers and Tory voters (mostly those without kids as those with kids also know it's nonsense) will lap it up. In short, he knows exactly what he is doing: denigrating teachers and creating a false impression of how children are taught in order to justify ideologically-driven changes to the curriculum that better reflect his own prejudices. He is a very clever politician and probably the best strategist the Tories have.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,885
    Financier said:

    Grade Social class Chief income earner's occupation
    A upper middle class Higher managerial, administrative or professional
    B middle class Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional
    C1 lower middle class Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional
    C2 skilled working class Skilled manual workers
    D working class Semi and unskilled manual workers
    E Those at the lowest levels of subsistence Casual or lowest grade workers, pensioners and others who depend on the welfare state for their income

    The grades are often grouped into ABC1 and C2DE and these are taken to equate to middle class and working class respectively. Only around 2% of the UK population is identified as upper class,[3] and this group is not included in the classification scheme.

    Source: NRS

    Social Class Splits 2012:

    Class: Men % Of Total: Women % of Total: Class Total

    AB: 13.2% 12.6% 25.8%
    C1 15.4% 14.0% 29.4%
    C2 9.5% 10.5% 20.0%
    DE 9.9% 14.7% 24.6%

    Source: www.evolution-insights.com

    Is it based on job title or salary
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:


    Gay adoption, now seen as almost entirely uncontroversial, was also a big flashpoint

    Shame that Labour felt it was important to put enough pressure on the Catholic adoption service that large parts of it closed their doors.
    I'm not sure the effect was that large (citation?), but even if it was, I don't think it was an issue we could or should have wriggled away from. Like B&Bs refusing gay or black or Irish people, the existence of such open barriers in any kind of public service or trade contributes to making the group concerned feel excluded. I'm not in favour of forcing churches to bless gay marriages as that's an internal matter, but church adoption agencies purport to be providing a non-religious public service, and introduce religion-based barriers is as unacceptable as a homelessness charity that required homeless people to pray before being admitted.

    I've linked to a couple of stories at my post at 10.03

    Comparing this to a B&B refusing black or Irish people is irrelevant - there is no religious locus in colour or race.

    The question for me is whether children are better off by preventing people providing a service that benefits them? In this case, clearly the answer is no. If the charities have strong religious beliefs that prevent them from complying with the law then they should be provided with a safe harbour: so long as they make adequate provisions to make sure that prospective parents who happen to be gay are not disadvantaged by their religious beliefs then their should be a way to allow them to continue to provide the service.

    That way more children get homes, the gay parents aren't disadvantaged, and you continue to encourage the charitable impulse among those willing to help out with the neediest in society.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited May 2013
    This whole thing with Nigel Evans is disturbing.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323136/Tory-MP-triggered-Deputy-Speaker-rape-case-taking-alleged-victim-police-station-make-bombshell-claims.html

    Police launched their rape investigation into Commons Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans as a result of the actions of a fellow Conservative MP, it can be revealed.

    The MP accompanied one of the alleged victims to a police station while he made the allegations that triggered Mr Evans’s bombshell arrest last weekend.

    Last night the MP, whose identity is being withheld by The Mail on Sunday, said: ‘It is important for legal reasons that I make absolutely no comment.’
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:


    Gay adoption, now seen as almost entirely uncontroversial, was also a big flashpoint

    Shame that Labour felt it was important to put enough pressure on the Catholic adoption service that large parts of it closed their doors.

    Have they?
    How many of them shut?

    Of course you could argue that pubs and clubs should be able to turn away black people and complain that some may close if they had to obey the law by your logic
    No, because the colour of one's skin has nothing to do with religion, and the adoption agencies had paired up with nearby agencies that had no problem with gay adoption.

    With adoption, the important thing is that kids find good permanent families as quickly as possible. Personally I believe that whether the parents are gay or straight has no bearing on whether they will be good parents or not. But kids don't benefit from reducing the number of people helping them, especially as the Catholic agencies typically specialised in the more difficult kids to place
    How many have shut?
    I see this claim made all the time, nobody ever backs it up with facts

    Edited my original post to include a link to the Guardian which states it as fact. They are noted for their accuracy.

    A literal interpretation of the Bible (an approach I don't adopt) states (or at least implies) that homosexuality is a sin. Of course, Catholics aren't fundamentalists, so rely on the Church's interpretation of the Bible rather than the specific words. But I'm sure you knew that.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @NickPalmer Spot on. UKIP is a party for people who have problems with the 21st century. No serious party can compromise with that mindset without looking hypocritical or losing other sets of voters. When someone is standing on the ledge of a high building making a cry for help, it's not generally recommended to climb up there with them and holding their hands in preparation for a jump.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Interesting that almost a third of UKIP voters want to legalise gay marriage. Almost certainly going to be a big generational divide in the party.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @malcolmg

    It says: chief income earner's occupation.
  • Being against gay marriage became UKIP policy when so many of our members and voters thought it was a good idea. A party responding to its supporters' worries? UKIP won't be apologising for that.

    Most of the time, a party's leadership should be leading its members. Occasionally, the membership steers the party.

    Personally, I'm much more concerned about the ridiculous overdevelopment of Cambridge than I am interested in the govt's instructions to churches.

    I don't want any largescale housing developments in my village. I don't actually want them in anybody else's backyard either. How to avoid it? Substantially reducing net immigration would be a good place to start. When that popular and reasonable view is described as 'reactionary', we plead guilty.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited May 2013
    tim said:

    @Charles

    Could you please provide us with a list of Catholic adoption agencies that have closed due to gay adoption.

    No, because I am not aware anyone has collected such a list and I have better things to do on a Sunday. The Guardian states it as fact - that'll do for me.
    tim said:

    I assume you think B&B's should be able to flout the law on gay people as well do you, because of a reading of the bible.

    No, I don't. I don't have an issue with B&B's insisting on only letting rooms to married couples (including gay couples in a civil partnership) but this should be strictly enforced for both unmarried homosexual and heterosexual couples. I think it would be a crazy business decision, but that's up to them.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Latest ARSE 2015 GE Projection :

    Con 290 .. Lab 280 .. LibDem 43 .. SNP 10 .. PC 3 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1 .. NI 18
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @david_kendrick1

    What government instructions to the churches did you have in mind ?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746



    Personally, I'm much more concerned about the ridiculous overdevelopment of Cambridge than I am interested in the govt's instructions to churches.

    Are you content to accept the result of your recent council election, or will you be starting a terror campaign to overturn the result?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 100,969
    UKIP voters are certainly more socially conservative than Cameron's conservatives who are more socially liberal, this also helps explain why UKIP appeals to working-class Labour voters, who also often tend to take a traditional view on social issues
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,775

    Being against gay marriage became UKIP policy when so many of our members and voters thought it was a good idea. A party responding to its supporters' worries? UKIP won't be apologising for that.

    Most of the time, a party's leadership should be leading its members. Occasionally, the membership steers the party.

    Personally, I'm much more concerned about the ridiculous overdevelopment of Cambridge than I am interested in the govt's instructions to churches.

    I don't want any largescale housing developments in my village. I don't actually want them in anybody else's backyard either. How to avoid it? Substantially reducing net immigration would be a good place to start. When that popular and reasonable view is described as 'reactionary', we plead guilty.

    "Personally, I'm much more concerned about the ridiculous overdevelopment of Cambridge than I am interested in the govt's instructions to churches. "

    What ridiculous overdevelopment?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    JackW said:

    @david_kendrick1

    What government instructions to the churches did you have in mind ?

    Indeed. I find this view very odd:

    The government allowing churches to decide whether or not they will marry gay people: government telling churches what to do.
    The government banning churches from marrying gay people: government not telling churches what to do.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    @Charles.

    You don't know whether, or how many Catholic adoption agencies closed for that reason do you.
    That was obvious the last time you peddled the line too.

    I am relying on a reputable national newspaper.

    Or should we just ignore you any time you cite an article or tweet in support of an argument?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,889
    @Jack
    "Con 290 .. Lab 280 .. LibDem 43 .. SNP 10 .. PC 3 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1 .. NI 18"

    Your ARSE seems to have been lured away from evidence based polling into something altogether more Mephistophelian called Wishful Thinking.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,252
    antifrank said:

    @NickPalmer Spot on. UKIP is a party for people who have problems with the 21st century. No serious party can compromise with that mindset without looking hypocritical or losing other sets of voters. When someone is standing on the ledge of a high building making a cry for help, it's not generally recommended to climb up there with them and holding their hands in preparation for a jump.

    That sounds rather like the 'rubbing their faces in multiculturalism' argument. The idea that all change is progress is simply wrong and the idea that all 'serious' political parties should share the metropolitan dinner-party mindset (or that only those which do, by definition, are 'serious') is what is driving those who don't away from all three. It is the logic of political correctness all over again: unless you agree with what I say, you are intolerable.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    How many of these MPs who keep banging on about Europe have already been re-selected by their constituencies?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,118
    Indeed, Mr. Herdson.
  • samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182
    edited May 2013

    Only a small number of voters IMO care passionately about gay marriage, but UKIP voters see it as a really good example - a marker issue - of what they dislike about modern trends and the willingness of Conservatives and the other main parties to go along with them. Unlike the complexities of the EU vs the EEA or different kinds of migration, it's something that can be stated in one sentence and instantly understood.

    Fraser Nelson's interesting piece underplays the opposition to civil partnerships, though. As an MP at the time I was strongly lobbied against by religious constituents who saw it as the thin end of the wedge to gay marriage - and they were of course factually correct, as it turns out. Gay adoption, now seen as almost entirely uncontroversial, was also a big flashpoint, with a good many people seeing it as leading, if not directly to abuse, at least to encouragement of children to "become gay". I felt at the time that was being quite brave in resisting all this, and I'm pleasantly surprised by how swiftly opinion has changed. But UKIP voters are presumably dismayed.

    As someone noted recently, it misses the point about UKIP to describe it as racist - it isn't the driving force behind most UKIP votuing. What it is is reactionary, in the literal sense of reacting against changes in society. Ethnic changes are another example for them of modern undesirable trends.

    I don't think that parties that are essentially comfortable with modern society can really compromise on any of this without being seen through as transparent hypocrites. We should be willing to sympathise with rather than condemn people who are upset by rapid social change around them. But it's cynical and wrong to pretend we can or will reverse it.


    I disagree with Nick.

    You sympathise with people who don't agree with left wing views on social change? i suppose we just havent realised that youre right yet? there there.... How patronising

    Racism isn't the driving force behind most ukip voting? How passive aggressive would you like to be?

    Filthy condescension from someone who should know better
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Roger said:

    @Jack
    "Con 290 .. Lab 280 .. LibDem 43 .. SNP 10 .. PC 3 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1 .. NI 18"

    Your ARSE seems to have been lured away from evidence based polling into something altogether more Mephistophelian called Wishful Thinking.

    How very dare you question the supreme methodology of the finest polling organization known to mankind and indeed the history of the universe !!

    Meanwhile .... Polling on the Klingon In/Out referendum due next week - Will the United Klingon Intergalatic Party -UKIP, prevail ?!?

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    @samonipad

    The driving force behind Ukip appears to be much more what they are against rather than what they are for.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 36,895
    samonipad said:

    Only a small number of voters IMO care passionately about gay marriage, but UKIP voters see it as a really good example - a marker issue - of what they dislike about modern trends and the willingness of Conservatives and the other main parties to go along with them. Unlike the complexities of the EU vs the EEA or different kinds of migration, it's something that can be stated in one sentence and instantly understood.

    Fraser Nelson's interesting piece underplays the opposition to civil partnerships, though. As an MP at the time I was strongly lobbied against by religious constituents who saw it as the thin end of the wedge to gay marriage - and they were of course factually correct, as it turns out. Gay adoption, now seen as almost entirely uncontroversial, was also a big flashpoint, with a good many people seeing it as leading, if not directly to abuse, at least to encouragement of children to "become gay". I felt at the time that was being quite brave in resisting all this, and I'm pleasantly surprised by how swiftly opinion has changed. But UKIP voters are presumably dismayed.

    As someone noted recently, it misses the point about UKIP to describe it as racist - it isn't the driving force behind most UKIP votuing. What it is is reactionary, in the literal sense of reacting against changes in society. Ethnic changes are another example for them of modern undesirable trends.

    I don't think that parties that are essentially comfortable with modern society can really compromise on any of this without being seen through as transparent hypocrites. We should be willing to sympathise with rather than condemn people who are upset by rapid social change around them. But it's cynical and wrong to pretend we can or will reverse it.


    I disagree with Nick.

    You sympathise with people who don't agree with left wing views on social change? i suppose we just havent realised that youre right yet? there there.... How patronising

    Racism isn't the driving force behind most ukip voting? How passive agressive would you like to be?

    Filthy condescension from someone who should know better

    Some people just want to be angry.

    Nick says UKIP voters are not racist and are not anti-gay, and two PB UKIP voters are furious with him!

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:

    @NickPalmer Spot on. UKIP is a party for people who have problems with the 21st century. No serious party can compromise with that mindset without looking hypocritical or losing other sets of voters. When someone is standing on the ledge of a high building making a cry for help, it's not generally recommended to climb up there with them and holding their hands in preparation for a jump.

    That sounds rather like the 'rubbing their faces in multiculturalism' argument. The idea that all change is progress is simply wrong and the idea that all 'serious' political parties should share the metropolitan dinner-party mindset (or that only those which do, by definition, are 'serious') is what is driving those who don't away from all three. It is the logic of political correctness all over again: unless you agree with what I say, you are intolerable.
    That's got it back to front. UKIP is a party for those whose mindset is that all change is by definition retrograde. Their sotto voce slogan is "this country is going to the dogs". Any suggestion, even if backed by firm evidence, that things are getting better on some fronts is just brushed off as not according with their existential sulk.

    There are good things and bad things about this country. Some of the changes are good, some are bad. There will be considerable disagreeement as to which were good and which were bad. But no serious party can deal with a party that has no policies except to seek to turn the clock back to a time that never existed.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @tim Thank God Ed Miliband is going on about more important policies:

    A sense of mission for the country.

    Inclusive.

    Not exclusive.

    Outward looking.

    Not inward looking.

    Optimistic about our future.

    Not simply hankering back to the past.

    There will be some people who say that a UKIP strategy or a Lynton Crosby strategy may just work.

    Set one group of people against another.

    Those in work against those out of work.

    Those in the public sector against the private sector.

    North against South.

    I say it’s our job to show a different way forward.

    Because we believe it.

    And it is the only way our country can succeed.

    One Nation is not just a slogan.

    It is not a Labour idea or a Conservative idea.

    It is a British idea.

    A country that acknowledges the difficulties, accepts the anxieties, knows that times are going to be hard, but that is confident that change can come.

    A country that knows that we work best when we work together.

    That knows that we won the War and rebuilt after the War because of that vision.

    A country where everybody is given the chance to play their part.

    And everybody is expected to do so.

    That’s what One Nation Labour stands for.

    That’s the future I offer our country.

    That’s the Britain we will rebuild together.


    http://labourlist.org/2013/05/ed-milibands-speech-to-progress-conference/

    Clearly, so much more substantive than the Tories or UKIP...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,118
    Mr. Observer, if someone said that racism wasn't the driving force behind most Labour voting do you think that party would be delighted at the description?

    Mr. Antifrank, whilst I agree most UKIP voters would probably be against change the party's central plank, leaving the EU, would be a very significant change. Indeed, UKIP advocates a more significant change to the UK than any other party (excepting the SNP).
  • samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182
    JackW said:

    @samonipad

    The driving force behind Ukip appears to be much more what they are against rather than what they are for.

    The big parties are against a lot of things that many people are for, and those people are turning away from them.

    Traditional marriage being privileged, grammar schools , UK independence, strict immigration controls....

    it's just that until recently, they could set the tone of the narrative unopposed
  • Does anyone please have links to:-
    1. What Peter Kellner actually said at the Progress conference yesterday.
    2. The newspaper reports today about Oakshytes antics against Clegg.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Morris_Dancer. UKIP doesn't have a worked through policy on the EU. Is it leaving the EEA to enable it to restrict the arrival of immigrants from the EU or staying in the EEA to get the benefit of the common market? Or is it going to sprinkle pixie dust and come up with a solution that isn't on offer and may not be capable of being negotiated?

    Until it musters a serious answer on its supposed main subject, it's a zero issue party, campaigning on this basis:

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/down_with_this_sort_of_thing.jpg
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,352



    Some people just want to be angry.

    Nick says UKIP voters are not racist and are not anti-gay, and two PB UKIP voters are furious with him!



    Nope Nick uses the same sort of sneering innuendo to make the claims. damning with faint praise as it used to be known.

    Sorry to see you buying into that.
  • samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182

    samonipad said:

    Only a small number of voters IMO care passionately about gay marriage, but UKIP voters see it as a really good example - a marker issue - of what they dislike about modern trends and the willingness of Conservatives and the other main parties to go along with them. Unlike the complexities of the EU vs the EEA or different kinds of migration, it's something that can be stated in one sentence and instantly understood.

    Fraser Nelson's interesting piece underplays the opposition to civil partnerships, though. As an MP at the time I was strongly lobbied against by religious constituents who saw it as the thin end of the wedge to gay marriage - and they were of course factually correct, as it turns out. Gay adoption, now seen as almost entirely uncontroversial, was also a big flashpoint, with a good many people seeing it as leading, if not directly to abuse, at least to encouragement of children to "become gay". I felt at the time that was being quite brave in resisting all this, and I'm pleasantly surprised by how swiftly opinion has changed. But UKIP voters are presumably dismayed.

    As someone noted recently, it misses the point about UKIP to describe it as racist - it isn't the driving force behind most UKIP votuing. What it is is reactionary, in the literal sense of reacting against changes in society. Ethnic changes are another example for them of modern undesirable trends.

    I don't think that parties that are essentially comfortable with modern society can really compromise on any of this without being seen through as transparent hypocrites. We should be willing to sympathise with rather than condemn people who are upset by rapid social change around them. But it's cynical and wrong to pretend we can or will reverse it.


    I disagree with Nick.

    You sympathise with people who don't agree with left wing views on social change? i suppose we just havent realised that youre right yet? there there.... How patronising

    Racism isn't the driving force behind most ukip voting? How passive agressive would you like to be?

    Filthy condescension from someone who should know better

    Some people just want to be angry.

    Nick says UKIP voters are not racist and are not anti-gay, and two PB UKIP voters are furious with him!

    .

    hardly angry or furious, I just disagree

    communism isn't the driving force behind most Labour voting, as a UKIP supporter I sympathise with rather than condemn with those who think gay marriage and mass immigration are important
  • What ridiculous overdevelopment of Cambridge?

    If JosiasJessop thinks that the five storey block of flats on Trumpington Water Meadows is an appropiate welcome to visitors on the main road from London to Cambridge, he's a lucky chap. He'll be able to vote for any of the other three main parties at the next GE.

    The approach in Cambridge is now for highly intensive new housing developments, with more people housed/acre than ever before ---'lets cram 'em in'.

    I am told that this is because it is what the high tech businesses in Cambridge 'want'. I don't believe it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,118
    Mr. Antifrank, the party clearly wants us to leave the EU. Regardless or staying in the EEA or not that alone would be a more dramatic and substantial change than any major party, excepting the SNP, is proposing.
  • samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182

    antifrank said:

    @NickPalmer Spot on. UKIP is a party for people who have problems with the 21st century. No serious party can compromise with that mindset without looking hypocritical or losing other sets of voters. When someone is standing on the ledge of a high building making a cry for help, it's not generally recommended to climb up there with them and holding their hands in preparation for a jump.

    That sounds rather like the 'rubbing their faces in multiculturalism' argument. The idea that all change is progress is simply wrong and the idea that all 'serious' political parties should share the metropolitan dinner-party mindset (or that only those which do, by definition, are 'serious') is what is driving those who don't away from all three. It is the logic of political correctness all over again: unless you agree with what I say, you are intolerable.
    Well said David.



  • samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182
    tim said:

    @sam.

    I reckon most UKIP'ers are against garlic.
    And they wan't to know why this was taken away from them

    http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x56/bobby9949/JD-8track-remote.jpg

    "what do we want?"

    "Plain food"

    "When do we want it?"

    "Not too late"

    you are entitled to your view. I prefer to give more respect to people in the autumn of their lives who are often wiser without the impulses of youth
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,352
    antifrank said:



    That's got it back to front. UKIP is a party for those whose mindset is that all change is by definition retrograde. Their sotto voce slogan is "this country is going to the dogs". Any suggestion, even if backed by firm evidence, that things are getting better on some fronts is just brushed off as not according with their existential sulk.

    There are good things and bad things about this country. Some of the changes are good, some are bad. There will be considerable disagreeement as to which were good and which were bad. But no serious party can deal with a party that has no policies except to seek to turn the clock back to a time that never existed.

    Complete garbage again Antifrank. It is you with your desperate clinging to the EU who is against change and the only way you can support that position is with wild claims of disaster should we leave. I would say you belong with the dinosaurs but as we have seen over the last few days at least some of those dinosaurs have realised it is better to evolve than to become extinct along with the rest of the Europhiles.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    @Charles.

    It's clear you don't know.
    You didn't know last time you tried it either but haven't learned.

    From the Guardian:

    "The row over exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies dates back to 2007, when the regulations were introduced. At the time, the then Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, warned that the 11 Catholic adoption agencies would close rather than place children with gay couples. ... While some agencies have closed, others have severed their links with the church in order to stay open."

    That seems reasonable supporting evidence to me.

    Are you telling me the Guardian is wrong?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Morris_Dancer There's nothing clear about UKIP's policy on the EU. It's not at all clear that it is aiming for anything more than David Cameron himself is aiming for through renegotiation (though that is also David Cameron's fault for not setting out more clearly what he is intending). It's just a rage against the current set-up, with nothing coherent to put in its place.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,352
    antifrank said:

    @Morris_Dancer. UKIP doesn't have a worked through policy on the EU. Is it leaving the EEA to enable it to restrict the arrival of immigrants from the EU or staying in the EEA to get the benefit of the common market? Or is it going to sprinkle pixie dust and come up with a solution that isn't on offer and may not be capable of being negotiated?

    Until it musters a serious answer on its supposed main subject, it's a zero issue party, campaigning on this basis:

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/down_with_this_sort_of_thing.jpg

    Every party has these same problems with the EU and questions of free movement and immigration because in all cases their positions are incompatible with reality. At least in the case of UKIP they are moving towards a realistic position and actually responding to the concerns of the electorate rather than writing them off as reactionary.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @Richard_Tyndall I have not expressed my own views on the EU on here in any detail. I confine myself to pointing out the utter incoherence of the Europhobes' position.

    I doubt that many people would actually be that interested in my views on the EU, but should there be a desire from others for an extended essay on that niche subject, I'll try to put one together when I have some free time. They would not necessarily be what people assume.
  • samonipadsamonipad Posts: 182
    “Of all the silliest sayings, one of the silliest is the saying, ‘You can’t put the clock back’

    “Of course you can put the clock back and you often do. If a clock is showing the wrong time, you put it back or forward, whichever is necessary, without the slightest hesitation.

    “If a mistake has been made we ought to put it right if we can.

    “We ought always to be on our guard against those who whisper in our ear, ‘It’s done now and it can’t be undone’. Those are commonly the voices of cowardice or indolence and sometimes of downright evil intent.

    “The mistake Britain made in becoming a part of the European Economic Community is not irreversible.”
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    If the political class want to know about Ukip voters why don't they ask some of their friends and acquaintances.
This discussion has been closed.