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.
I am not buying into sneering innuendo or condescension. It's more that Sam and GeoffM seem to be as uncomprehending of Nick's views as they believe he is of theirs.
Richard_Tyndall In UKIP, the unspeakable n word is "negotiation". UKIP are completely dishonest in pretending that what they propound could be achieved without negotiation with others. Other parties explicitly recognise that while we remain in the EU compromise is necessary.
Can the Tories only win the 2015 GE with a new leader ? Camerons attempts to modernise the Tory party are not liked by some Tories and they have moved to UKIP. Will they stick with UKIP and risk a Labour majority govenment ?
@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.
Absolute idiotic bosh! I have to laugh at all the reasons and excuses some people find to explain the UKIP surge. Not only that, but according to my latest information, most people joining or donating to UKIP in the last few weeks, are the 18 - 40 age range. It's all very simple Kippers are voting for something new, not old, and dont trust the Con/Lab/lib party to do anything, anything at all.
@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.
Wrong again. The policy is very clear.
Initially there would be a referendum to withdraw from the EU with UKIP campaigning for uis to leave.
If the vote was in favour of leaving then this would put us in the position of being out of the EU but inside the EEA which we are a separate signatory to. This would mean that we would immediately have greater control over immigration because like Norway free movement would be limited to those in employment or financially independent.
At that point the debate would then be held as to whether we should withdraw entirely from the EEA and apply for membership of EFTA - so allowing us access to large sections of the single market as well as a free trade agreements with many other countries whilst allowing more fundamental control of migration.
It is this last point that UKIP have not yet decided upon as I read it. Personally I think the EFTA route is far better. But even so the move from the EU to the EEA would be a step that would bring far more benefits including much better control of our own borders and would certainly help to deal with one of the issues which concern people (rightly or wrongly) which is migration of those without employment from EU countries to the UK.
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.
Considering the main road from London to Cambridge is the M11, I think anything's an appropriate welcome.
Trumpington Meadows is an interesting one - they were talking about building there when I first moved down to Cambridge in 1997. It'll be handy for the M11 and the various bus services into the city centre. There're worse places to build.
I'm for construction on the Oakington site (Northstowe). I'm for development on the Waterbeach Barracks site.
The one development I am dead against is the Marshalls airport site, at least without a massive and probably infeasible upgrade to the Newmarket Road.
Cambridge is a hot housing area: it is appealing to many people, and not just from the tech sector. Both myself and my wife are incomers, and have been here, on and off, for over 25 years between us. We rented for years, and have only recently bought a house in Cambourne. We did not buy for an investment, or for rising property prices - we just wanted somewhere that we could call our own after living in a succession of rented properties.
If Cambourne had not been developed, we may have not been able to afford a house, and that may have forced us to look in another area for work. That would have deprived my wife's firm of an excellent engineer, and the firms I work for of a merely competent one.
And this matters. As an example: we moved back up to Cambridge over two years ago from a firm near Southampton. My wife leaving, along with another engineer, closed down that part of the division - they couldn't get the staff. The work was transferred to Switzerland.
From my house, I can walk for three minutes and visit four engineers who I have worked with in the past.
If you want Cambridge to thrive, you should consider how to attract people like us into the area.
Finally, your attitude of "He'll be able to vote for any of the other three main parties at the next GE." is hardly endearing for someone who wants me, or people like me, to vote for him.
@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.
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.
I am not buying into sneering innuendo or condescension. It's more that Sam and GeoffM seem to be as uncomprehending of Nick's views as they believe he is of theirs.
Would you like to apologise for misquoting me yet? Remember when you made up something I didn't say to advance your argument?
Richard_Tyndall In UKIP, the unspeakable n word is "negotiation". UKIP are completely dishonest in pretending that what they propound could be achieved without negotiation with others. Other parties explicitly recognise that while we remain in the EU compromise is necessary.
Withdrawal from the EU would in principle require no negotiation in the first isntance although I would personally think it would be sensible after the event. We are already members of the EEA as an independent signatory so that would be our status after we left the EU.
At that point there would be huge amounts of negotiation to be done depending on what we wished our future status to be but that does not change the basic position regarding the EU and the ability to withdraw.
Something that nobody has mentioned is that being against gay marriage and immigration is actually a perfectly coherent policy position.
You see, it's all about succession policy; who succeeds us. If you more or less stop immigrants taking us place then you need a higher birth rate to maintain the population.
Notably, the Greens are very pro-gay, but they of course are perfectly happy with a reducing population.
@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.
@Richard_Tyndall Good to see you declare yourself at the pixie dust end of UKIP.
1) Britain has no automatic right to join EFTA. 2) Describing membership of the EEA as giving "much better control of our own borders" is fantasy.
But apart from that, it's a well worked-through policy.
Your first comment is misleading because I never said we did have automatic right to join EFTA Simply that it would be a good way to go and that as a previous founding member I do not believe those particular negotiations would be insurmountable.
Membership of the EEA does give you better control of your borders. That is exactly the case with Norway where they are able to dictate that only those with employment are allowed to settle.
@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.
You see, it's all about succession policy; who succeeds us. If you more or less stop immigrants taking us place then you need a higher birth rate to maintain the population.
Are you suggesting that if denied the opportunity to marry someone of their own gender the gays will suddenly drop their enthusiasm for Eurovision and go out and breed for their country?
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.
I am not buying into sneering innuendo or condescension. It's more that Sam and GeoffM seem to be as uncomprehending of Nick's views as they believe he is of theirs.
Would you like to apologise for misquoting me yet? Remember when you made up something I didn't say to advance your argument?
Come on, be a gentleman.
I have nothing to apologise for. You had a period during which you seemed to refer to the "white working class" as some kind of monolithic institution with a single way of viewing the world. I merely pointed out that if that is what you thought, you were wrong. You said you didn't think that. End of story.
@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.
Absolute idiotic bosh! I have to laugh at all the reasons and excuses some people find to explain the UKIP surge. Not only that, but according to my latest information, most people joining or donating to UKIP in the last few weeks, are the 18 - 40 age range. It's all very simple Kippers are voting for something new, not old, and dont trust the Con/Lab/lib party to do anything, anything at all.
The surge bit definitely needs explaining, as the 'UKIP is for people who have problems with teh 21st centruty' argument does not explain why apparently the number of people having a problem with that century has increased so markedly in the last year, when their core message has remained the same and no more than typical normal party nonsense has been going on.
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.
I am not buying into sneering innuendo or condescension. It's more that Sam and GeoffM seem to be as uncomprehending of Nick's views as they believe he is of theirs.
Would you like to apologise for misquoting me yet? Remember when you made up something I didn't say to advance your argument?
Come on, be a gentleman.
I have nothing to apologise for. You had a period during which you seemed to refer to the "white working class" as some kind of monolithic institution with a single way of viewing the world. I merely pointed out that if that is what you thought, you were wrong. You said you didn't think that. End of story.
I said there were "plenty" of working class people who were in favour of Grammar schools
You said that I was wrong to say "all" working class people were in favour of grammar schools and that I shouldnt present them as a monolith
I hadnt done so. It was there for all to see. You had misread what I said and in your rush to disagree with me, misquoted me.
But if you think that doesnt break the rules of ettiquette on a website for political debate, we know where you stand and can treat you accordingly
With Gove today saying he would vote for the UK to leave the EU as things now stand, what is clear is that UKIP have the Tories by the short and curlies. Can they spend the next two years avoiding setting out what their renegotiating red lines will be?
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.
I am not buying into sneering innuendo or condescension. It's more that Sam and GeoffM seem to be as uncomprehending of Nick's views as they believe he is of theirs.
Would you like to apologise for misquoting me yet? Remember when you made up something I didn't say to advance your argument?
Come on, be a gentleman.
I have nothing to apologise for. You had a period during which you seemed to refer to the "white working class" as some kind of monolithic institution with a single way of viewing the world. I merely pointed out that if that is what you thought, you were wrong. You said you didn't think that. End of story.
I said there were "plenty" of working class people who were in favour of Grammar schools
You said that I was wrong to say "all" working class people were in favour of grammar schools and that I shouldnt present them as a monolith
I hadnt done so. It was there for all to see. You had misread what I said and in your rush to disagree with me, misquoted me.
But if you think that doesnt break the rules of ettiquette on a website for political debate, we know where you stand and can treat you accordingly
Indeed. On this internet message board you can make whatever judgements you like about me. I promise not to be offended.
Another, institutional, point that can be made about the above article is that religious people are embedded in numerous churches, charities, schools and other institutions.
This gives them the perfect platform to persuade others to abandon David Cameron without even mentioning gay marriage, which if you continually bang on about makes you look weird and obsessive.
Furthermore, looking at the data provided, it appears there is plenty left to squeeze in the remaining Tory vote on a religious freedom platform.
As an aside, I note that the closure/disaffiliation of the Catholic adoption agencies is still an issue, despite it taking place under Blair. This puts pay to any idea that Dopey Dave has that gay marriage will be forgotten about after the bill's passage.
Gove is changing strategy. He could have had a lot of teachers on side at the start as so many - me included - were desperate for change... but he soured some potentially saleable policies by damning the whole profession at every opportunity (unlike Wilshaw, who I respect). Now he's being more conciliatory, and namechecking left wing bloggers who are more on side. I think that's just politics, not a change of view/intention, but it's better politics.
Are you suggesting that if denied the opportunity to marry someone of their own gender the gays will suddenly drop their enthusiasm for Eurovision and go out and breed for their country?
Finland is planning a lesbian kiss at the end of their performance to promote free love and marriage for all. Ireland is planning half naked male dancers.
With Gove today saying he would vote for the UK to leave the EU as things now stand, what is clear is that UKIP have the Tories by the short and curlies. Can they spend the next two years avoiding setting out what their renegotiating red lines will be?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to avoid setting out their red lines. What they can't do is spending two years avoiding even saying what their opening demands would be!
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.
I am not buying into sneering innuendo or condescension. It's more that Sam and GeoffM seem to be as uncomprehending of Nick's views as they believe he is of theirs.
Would you like to apologise for misquoting me yet? Remember when you made up something I didn't say to advance your argument?
Come on, be a gentleman.
I have nothing to apologise for. You had a period during which you seemed to refer to the "white working class" as some kind of monolithic institution with a single way of viewing the world. I merely pointed out that if that is what you thought, you were wrong. You said you didn't think that. End of story.
I said there were "plenty" of working class people who were in favour of Grammar schools
You said that I was wrong to say "all" working class people were in favour of grammar schools and that I shouldnt present them as a monolith
I hadnt done so. It was there for all to see. You had misread what I said and in your rush to disagree with me, misquoted me.
But if you think that doesnt break the rules of ettiquette on a website for political debate, we know where you stand and can treat you accordingly
Indeed. On this internet message board you can make whatever judgements you like about me. I promise not to be offended.
I think you are a coward who uses lies to further his argument
How can any polite person who misquotes someone in a debate, fail to apologise, even if they disagree with the person generally?
@Richard_Tyndall Good to see you declare yourself at the pixie dust end of UKIP.
1) Britain has no automatic right to join EFTA. 2) Describing membership of the EEA as giving "much better control of our own borders" is fantasy.
But apart from that, it's a well worked-through policy.
Your first comment is misleading because I never said we did have automatic right to join EFTA Simply that it would be a good way to go and that as a previous founding member I do not believe those particular negotiations would be insurmountable.
Membership of the EEA does give you better control of your borders. That is exactly the case with Norway where they are able to dictate that only those with employment are allowed to settle.
Indeed. Antifrank simply asserts things like "this can't be done" without any evidence or further argument, before insulting eurosceptics as "phobes" or "pixie dust". It's a great shame, as he's an intelligent poster on other matters.
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!
More likely a Consersative leadership contest is on the cards. This sounds like Gove positioning himself to replace Cameron.
Something that nobody has mentioned is that being against gay marriage and immigration is actually a perfectly coherent policy position.
You see, it's all about succession policy; who succeeds us. If you more or less stop immigrants taking us place then you need a higher birth rate to maintain the population.
Notably, the Greens are very pro-gay, but they of course are perfectly happy with a reducing population.
Presumably then, British gay people getting surrogate children, is something you'd support?
@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.
Clearly, so much more substantive than the Tories or UKIP...
usual labour vacuous bollox weasly words that mean beggar all
The whole speech went on like that, but I didn't want to use up the whole thread. It's quite impressive how long he can go on without saying anything at all.
Don't worry. They are dancers. I am actually disappointed that Jedward won't read the Irish votes. I was looking forwards to them shouting figures at random.
More likely a Consersative leadership contest is on the cards. This sounds like Gove positioning himself to replace Cameron.
Yes, there is no Lib Dem leadership plot...
Olly Grender, who worked as Mr Clegg’s deputy director of communications, confirmed that Mr Cable has attempted to try and oust the Liberal Democrat leader in recent months.
@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.
Wrong again. The policy is very clear.
Initially there would be a referendum to withdraw from the EU with UKIP campaigning for uis to leave.
If the vote was in favour of leaving then this would put us in the position of being out of the EU but inside the EEA which we are a separate signatory to. This would mean that we would immediately have greater control over immigration because like Norway free movement would be limited to those in employment or financially independent.
At that point the debate would then be held as to whether we should withdraw entirely from the EEA and apply for membership of EFTA - so allowing us access to large sections of the single market as well as a free trade agreements with many other countries whilst allowing more fundamental control of migration.
It is this last point that UKIP have not yet decided upon as I read it. Personally I think the EFTA route is far better. But even so the move from the EU to the EEA would be a step that would bring far more benefits including much better control of our own borders and would certainly help to deal with one of the issues which concern people (rightly or wrongly) which is migration of those without employment from EU countries to the UK.
Richard - here Farage says UKIP would use the EEA as a "holding position", from which we could negotiate a trade deal:
The Sunday Politics Show seems to have adopted an over load of lefties and europhiles in its resident "newspaper" commentators. We now have 1. Guardian leftie 2. New Statesman leftie 3. FT europhile with centrist leanings.
Andrew Neil, how can this be called balance? Not even one eurosceptic amongst them.
I hoped Conservative Home would have run some news regarding Tory MEP selection outcomes this morning. They indeed have an article but it's about apparent silly rules that candidates can't meet anyone during the selection campaign.
Yesterday, the electoral college was meeting in a number of regions. Many sitting MEPs (the 3 London ones, the Welsh lady, Julie Girling & Ashley Fox in SW, Emma McClarkin, Saj Karim & Jacqueline Foster in NW) tweeted yesterday that they have been re-selected/re-adopted.
By "re-selected" or "re-adopted", do they likely mean they earned a place on the candidate list or that they got the top spots?
In the Welsh case, it seems she assured the top of the list as some MPs and AMs tweeted their congratulations specyfing "reselected as top candidare" or "lead candidate". If all others are reselected with right to be ranked before new candidates, it means that the decisive part of the selection process is basically finished as in many regions as there won't be more winnable places after current incumbents.
You are entitled to your views. I think you are someone who sometimes misunderstands and misinterprets other people's posts, and likes to talk about big groups of people as single entities when, in fact, the reality is far more nuanced. You also seem to take offence when none is meant. And you seem to be very focused on ethnicity. Perhaps we are wrong about each other.
It is quite amusing, is it not, for one anonymous poster on an internet message board to accuse another anonymous poster of cowardice?
Are you suggesting that if denied the opportunity to marry someone of their own gender the gays will suddenly drop their enthusiasm for Eurovision and go out and breed for their country?
Finland is planning a lesbian kiss at the end of their performance to promote free love and marriage for all. Ireland is planning half naked male dancers.
Talking of half-naked male dancing (*), the 40th Cambridge beer festival starts at the beginning of next week (20th) through to the 25th, on Jesus Green.
It's a great visit if you like real ale. It is the UK's second largest beer festival, and has such a plethora of beverages that it demands at least two visits every year.
(*) According to long-held tradition, the half-naked male dancing will, sadly, be performed by myself. Imagine a furball and you won't be too far from the mark. :-)
The Sunday Politics Show seems to have adopted an over load of lefties and europhiles in its resident "newspaper" commentators. We now have 1. Guardian leftie 2. New Statesman leftie 3. FT europhile with centrist leanings.
Andrew Neil, how can this be called balance? Not even one eurosceptic amongst them.
Sometimes shows will have cancellations and the balance won't work out very fairly. Usually the Daily Politics is pretty good, and Andrew Neil will usually take up the side that isn't represented. It's not like Question Time, which is consistently biased to the left.
Sometimes shows will have cancellations and the balance won't work out very fairly. Usually the Daily Politics is pretty good, and Andrew Neil will usually take up the side that isn't represented. It's not like Question Time, which is consistently biased to the left.
Apart from Boston they seem to be up 6% or 7% max against Con, so if the national projection numbers are right: CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%
...then contrary to the way the Survation guy is spinning it, that doesn't really seem to conflict with the standard assumptions that FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election.
You are entitled to your views. I think you are someone who sometimes misunderstands and misinterprets other people's posts, and likes to talk about big groups of people as single entities when, in fact, the reality is far more nuanced. You also seem to take offence when none is meant. And you seem to be very focused on ethnicity. Perhaps we are wrong about each other.
It is quite amusing, is it not, for one anonymous poster on an internet message board to accuse another anonymous poster of cowardice?
If I misquoted somebody, I would apologise.
Every time immigration is mentioned, most people talk about big groups of people as single entities. The left more so than the right IMO.
We both know I didnt talk about working class people as a monolith, I said "plenty of working class people", so I deliberately didnt do what you claimed that I did.
Its not that I am offended, that word is overused. i just like to play with a straight bat and thought most people would too.
It is not really all that amusing. For one my name is Sam, Samuel Knowles. I am not anonyomous. When we disagreed on Dagenham and white brits leaving, I offered to meet you in the area for a pint and to talk to people that had move or were thinking of moving.
When I debate with you, I try to take care to make sure I answer what you say, not what I interptret you to mean. All I asked for was an apology when you misquoted me, I dont see why that is beyond you.
Francis Wheen once said that the one fact everyone believes they know about a public figure is always wrong.
Is there anything we can do to improve the use of statistics in political debate? Or would it be better to try and ban statistics altogether, at least some of the time, so that people could debate the principles involved, rather than shadow box with mutually misleading statistics?
As an aside, I note that the closure/disaffiliation of the Catholic adoption agencies is still an issue, despite it taking place under Blair. This puts pay to any idea that Dopey Dave has that gay marriage will be forgotten about after the bill's passage.
That was more because a reasonable compromise position was put forward by the churches, supported by the conservatives, and the government of the time decided do go for fully implementation of the letter of the law, even though they knew the consequences.
No body was better off as a result, but at least the government got to "send a message" that they "cared" about "equal rights" (except for the religious)
Francis Wheen once said that the one fact everyone believes they know about a public figure is always wrong.
Is there anything we can do to improve the use of statistics in political debate? Or would it be better to try and ban statistics altogether, at least some of the time, so that people could debate the principles involved, rather than shadow box with mutually misleading statistics?
There would be almost 3,000 fewer posts on here if that were to happen!
Apart from Boston they seem to be up 6% or 7% max against Con, so if the national projection numbers are right: CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%
...then contrary to the way the Survation guy is spinning it, that doesn't really seem to conflict with the standard assumptions that FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election.
Survation make the point that "UKIP appear to have reached their “tipping point” at their current level of popularity where their vote begins to “cluster” allowing first-past-the-post victories."
EDIT "FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election."
Immediately before the local elections YouGov had UKIP at 10%. Immediately after the local elections YouGov had UKIP at 12%.
So say Gove or May or somebody knifes Cameron, blows up the coalition and calls a general election. Do we reckon they could get a majority (or even largest party) off the bounce?
You've provided nothing. And you didn't last time you made the assertion either.
I provided a link and a quote from the Guardian stating that agencies had closed down or disaffiliated.
I also provided a link to an article in Catholic Herald (albeit about Scotland - don't know if this is a devolved area or not) saying that the agencies were being threatened with the loss of charitable status.
Good on Gove for bringing the Oakeshott boil out into the sunlight. Everyone knows this unelected, unaccountable Lib Dem hack has being trying to destroy Nick as a vanity project for years. Of course, the Comeback Clegg is now vastly strengthened after Eastleigh, so Oakshott is now a far sadder and weaker figure. But with luck Gove's intervention should finish him off.
@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.
Wrong again. The policy is very clear.
Initially there would be a referendum to withdraw from the EU with UKIP campaigning for uis to leave.
If the vote was in favour of leaving then this would put us in the position of being out of the EU but inside the EEA which we are a separate signatory to. This would mean that we would immediately have greater control over immigration because like Norway free movement would be limited to those in employment or financially independent.
At that point the debate would then be held as to whether we should withdraw entirely from the EEA and apply for membership of EFTA - so allowing us access to large sections of the single market as well as a free trade agreements with many other countries whilst allowing more fundamental control of migration.
It is this last point that UKIP have not yet decided upon as I read it. Personally I think the EFTA route is far better. But even so the move from the EU to the EEA would be a step that would bring far more benefits including much better control of our own borders and would certainly help to deal with one of the issues which concern people (rightly or wrongly) which is migration of those without employment from EU countries to the UK.
Richard - here Farage says UKIP would use the EEA as a "holding position", from which we could negotiate a trade deal:
Yep exactly. It is a perfectly sensible p[osition saying that we can withdraw from the EU, retain membership of the EEA and access to the single market and then have a debate about whether we are satisfied with EEA membership or would rather apply for EFTA membership or separate free trade deals.
It is a completely coherent position and the Europhiles are simply trying to misrepresent it because they have no real arguments against it.
Francis Wheen once said that the one fact everyone believes they know about a public figure is always wrong.
Is there anything we can do to improve the use of statistics in political debate? Or would it be better to try and ban statistics altogether, at least some of the time, so that people could debate the principles involved, rather than shadow box with mutually misleading statistics?
There would be almost 3,000 fewer posts on here if that were to happen!
Tim has only posted 2,904 times...who are the other offenders ;-)
There is a part of me that will live happily with Spurs not beating Stoke today. It will make the next seven days less unpleasant. A week of stomach-churning tension, inevitably followed by crushing disappointment is not one to look forward to.
Apart from Boston they seem to be up 6% or 7% max against Con, so if the national projection numbers are right: CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%
...then contrary to the way the Survation guy is spinning it, that doesn't really seem to conflict with the standard assumptions that FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election.
Survation make the point that "UKIP appear to have reached their “tipping point” at their current level of popularity where their vote begins to “cluster” allowing first-past-the-post victories."
That's what I'm getting at: They don't actually make that point - they just say it. Their actual numbers say the opposite.
A national equivalent of 22% scores them a grand total of 6 seats (plus possibly a few more where there were no local elections). A 4% swing from UKIP to Con between the local election and the general electxion gives every seat back to Con except Boston and Skegness, and a 6% swing - which is still a very decent performance by UKIP - leaves them with just less than one.
@Socrates Most immigrants come to Britain to work. That's why it's fantasy.
But a small but significant number do not. So your statement about EEA membership not giving us greater control is clearly false. And when those who came here to work no longer have work they will have to leave which is perfectly reasonable.
Apart from Boston they seem to be up 6% or 7% max against Con, so if the national projection numbers are right: CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%
...then contrary to the way the Survation guy is spinning it, that doesn't really seem to conflict with the standard assumptions that FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election.
Survation make the point that "UKIP appear to have reached their “tipping point” at their current level of popularity where their vote begins to “cluster” allowing first-past-the-post victories."
That's what I'm getting at: They don't actually make that point - they just say it. Their actual numbers say the opposite.
A national equivalent of 22% scores them a grand total of 6 seats (plus possibly a few more where there were no local elections). A 4% swing from UKIP to Con between the local election and the general electxion gives every seat back to Con except Boston and Skegness, and a 6% swing - which is still a very decent performance by UKIP - leaves them with just less than one.
The accuracy of the pollsters re UKIP seems to be the question. The "national equivalent" produced 22%, at the same time YouGov were giving 10-12%.
Apart from Boston they seem to be up 6% or 7% max against Con, so if the national projection numbers are right: CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%
...then contrary to the way the Survation guy is spinning it, that doesn't really seem to conflict with the standard assumptions that FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election.
Survation make the point that "UKIP appear to have reached their “tipping point” at their current level of popularity where their vote begins to “cluster” allowing first-past-the-post victories."
That's what I'm getting at: They don't actually make that point - they just say it. Their actual numbers say the opposite.
A national equivalent of 22% scores them a grand total of 6 seats (plus possibly a few more where there were no local elections). A 4% swing from UKIP to Con between the local election and the general electxion gives every seat back to Con except Boston and Skegness, and a 6% swing - which is still a very decent performance by UKIP - leaves them with just less than one.
The accuracy of the pollsters re UKIP seems to be the question. The "national equivalent" produced 22%, at the same time YouGov were giving 10-12%.
Are you saying you don't believe the 22% national equivalent number (which is based on actual votes, not polling), or are you saying you think they'll get more than 22%?
What I'm saying is that on Survation's numbers it still looks like FPTP is going to eat UKIP for breakfast, because on 22% they only get 6-plus-a-bit seats, and on 15% they probably don't get any at all.
There's obviously a point somewhere where being spread thinly turns into a feature not a bug, eg if they get into the high 40s they win pretty much every seat in the country, but on any plausible score it still looks like FPTP is going to give them a kicking.
Apart from Boston they seem to be up 6% or 7% max against Con, so if the national projection numbers are right: CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%
...then contrary to the way the Survation guy is spinning it, that doesn't really seem to conflict with the standard assumptions that FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election.
Survation make the point that "UKIP appear to have reached their “tipping point” at their current level of popularity where their vote begins to “cluster” allowing first-past-the-post victories."
That's what I'm getting at: They don't actually make that point - they just say it. Their actual numbers say the opposite.
A national equivalent of 22% scores them a grand total of 6 seats (plus possibly a few more where there were no local elections). A 4% swing from UKIP to Con between the local election and the general electxion gives every seat back to Con except Boston and Skegness, and a 6% swing - which is still a very decent performance by UKIP - leaves them with just less than one.
The accuracy of the pollsters re UKIP seems to be the question. The "national equivalent" produced 22%, at the same time YouGov were giving 10-12%.
Are you saying you don't believe the 22% national equivalent number (which is based on actual votes, not polling), or are you saying you think they'll get more than 22%?
What I'm saying is that on Survation's numbers it still looks like FPTP is going to eat UKIP for breakfast, because on 22% they only get 6-plus-a-bit seats, and on 15% they probably don't get any at all.
There's obviously a point somewhere where being spread thinly turns into a feature not a bug, eg if they get into the high 40s they win pretty much every seat in the country, but on any plausible score it still looks like FPTP is going to give them a kicking.
I'm saying that two different organisations predicted UKIP's vote share with a 10% gap, at the same time. I'm saying that movement of UKIP's share in the polls (dominated by YouGov) is something to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
You are entitled to your views. I think you are someone who sometimes misunderstands and misinterprets other people's posts, and likes to talk about big groups of people as single entities when, in fact, the reality is far more nuanced. You also seem to take offence when none is meant. And you seem to be very focused on ethnicity. Perhaps we are wrong about each other.
It is quite amusing, is it not, for one anonymous poster on an internet message board to accuse another anonymous poster of cowardice?
If I misquoted somebody, I would apologise.
Every time immigration is mentioned, most people talk about big groups of people as single entities. The left more so than the right IMO.
We both know I didnt talk about working class people as a monolith, I said "plenty of working class people", so I deliberately didnt do what you claimed that I did.
Its not that I am offended, that word is overused. i just like to play with a straight bat and thought most people would too.
It is not really all that amusing. For one my name is Sam, Samuel Knowles. I am not anonyomous. When we disagreed on Dagenham and white brits leaving, I offered to meet you in the area for a pint and to talk to people that had move or were thinking of moving.
When I debate with you, I try to take care to make sure I answer what you say, not what I interptret you to mean. All I asked for was an apology when you misquoted me, I dont see why that is beyond you.
Sam, you need to lighten up a bit and not take it all so seriously. Some I can imagine throwing insults but SO is a gentlemen and would be unlikely to insult people. Even if he did it is only the internet.
Ukip were close to only one seat in the latest ARSE projection before a late burst of support doubled their representation. One wouldn't want Mr Farage to be lonely in the HoC .... well apart from his fifth columnists friends in the Conservative party.
I also look forward to Speaker Bercow calling "Mr Nigel Farage" in debates !! .... where will he sit on the Opposition benches - far right or perhaps behind Denis Skinner and Nick Palmer .... Oopps let that one out of the bag !!
@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.
Wrong again. The policy is very clear.
Initially there would be a referendum to withdraw from the EU with UKIP campaigning for uis to leave.
If the vote was in favour of leaving then this would put us in the position of being out of the EU but inside the EEA which we are a separate signatory to. This would mean that we would immediately have greater control over immigration because like Norway free movement would be limited to those in employment or financially independent.
At that point the debate would then be held as to whether we should withdraw entirely from the EEA and apply for membership of EFTA - so allowing us access to large sections of the single market as well as a free trade agreements with many other countries whilst allowing more fundamental control of migration.
It is this last point that UKIP have not yet decided upon as I read it. Personally I think the EFTA route is far better. But even so the move from the EU to the EEA would be a step that would bring far more benefits including much better control of our own borders and would certainly help to deal with one of the issues which concern people (rightly or wrongly) which is migration of those without employment from EU countries to the UK.
Richard - here Farage says UKIP would use the EEA as a "holding position", from which we could negotiate a trade deal:
Yep exactly. It is a perfectly sensible p[osition saying that we can withdraw from the EU, retain membership of the EEA and access to the single market and then have a debate about whether we are satisfied with EEA membership or would rather apply for EFTA membership or separate free trade deals.
It is a completely coherent position and the Europhiles are simply trying to misrepresent it because they have no real arguments against it.
I agree that's a coherent position, but I believe UKIP's position is more concrete than that. They say the EEA still has disadvantages, so they would negotiate our own deal, and that this can certainly be done, as evidenced by Switzerland, a much less powerful economy than us.
@Socrates Most immigrants come to Britain to work. That's why it's fantasy.
But a small but significant number do not. So your statement about EEA membership not giving us greater control is clearly false. And when those who came here to work no longer have work they will have to leave which is perfectly reasonable.
So UKIP would do almost nothing in practice about the barbarian hordes of Romanians and Bulgarians that are about to come to Britain. Good, I'm glad we agree.
For once this genuinely is brilliant news for the SNP. Gordon Brown is going to make a speech.
Scott, for once we agree , what are Labour thinking , Brown and Darling back on the scene. That will really help their cause and to crown it he is going to say vote NO to keep the Tories out in UK, what a divvy.
@Socrates Most immigrants come to Britain to work. That's why it's fantasy.
But a small but significant number do not. So your statement about EEA membership not giving us greater control is clearly false. And when those who came here to work no longer have work they will have to leave which is perfectly reasonable.
So UKIP would do almost nothing in practice about the barbarian hordes of Romanians and Bulgarians that are about to come to Britain. Good, I'm glad we agree.
Of course they would do something. They would make clear they are leaving the EU, and, once a separate trade deal is established, they would also leave the EEA. Large numbers of these potential migrants would then be looking elsewhere for a permanent move.
They would also stop the minority who are coming without employment as soon as we leave the EU. Just because they're not the majority doesn't make that "nothing".
You are entitled to your views. I think you are someone who sometimes misunderstands and misinterprets other people's posts, and likes to talk about big groups of people as single entities when, in fact, the reality is far more nuanced. You also seem to take offence when none is meant. And you seem to be very focused on ethnicity. Perhaps we are wrong about each other.
It is quite amusing, is it not, for one anonymous poster on an internet message board to accuse another anonymous poster of cowardice?
If I misquoted somebody, I would apologise.
Every time immigration is mentioned, most people talk about big groups of people as single entities. The left more so than the right IMO.
We both know I didnt talk about working class people as a monolith, I said "plenty of working class people", so I deliberately didnt do what you claimed that I did.
Its not that I am offended, that word is overused. i just like to play with a straight bat and thought most people would too.
It is not really all that amusing. For one my name is Sam, Samuel Knowles. I am not anonyomous. When we disagreed on Dagenham and white brits leaving, I offered to meet you in the area for a pint and to talk to people that had move or were thinking of moving.
When I debate with you, I try to take care to make sure I answer what you say, not what I interptret you to mean. All I asked for was an apology when you misquoted me, I dont see why that is beyond you.
Sam, you need to lighten up a bit and not take it all so seriously. Some I can imagine throwing insults but SO is a gentlemen and would be unlikely to insult people. Even if he did it is only the internet.
He is not a gentleman, he has no manners.
He didnt insult me, he just made up something that I didnt say and then refused to apologise for doing so.
@Socrates Most immigrants come to Britain to work. That's why it's fantasy.
But a small but significant number do not. So your statement about EEA membership not giving us greater control is clearly false. And when those who came here to work no longer have work they will have to leave which is perfectly reasonable.
So UKIP would do almost nothing in practice about the barbarian hordes of Romanians and Bulgarians that are about to come to Britain. Good, I'm glad we agree.
Of course not and the fact you so misrepresent both what I say and the facts clearly shows you have no real argument to counter my points.
If there are large numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians coming to Britain (and I have no way of knowing whether there are or not) then as members of the EU we cannot stop them. As members of EEA they would have to have proof of employment here before they would be allowed to enter. Unless you are claiming there are tens of thousands of jobs which have miraculously been created for any Eastern Europeans who might be planning on coming to Britain then your whole argument is utterly false.
For once this genuinely is brilliant news for the SNP. Gordon Brown is going to make a speech.
Scott, for once we agree , what are Labour thinking , Brown and Darling back on the scene. That will really help their cause and to crown it he is going to say vote NO to keep the Tories out in UK, what a divvy.
Brown crushed the SNP in the 2010 GE. Salmond was predicting 20 seats , he came up woefully short of that target.
If you are going to be insisting on genetlemanly standards of exchange, might I suggest that you don't characterise a contribution from one of PB's longest standing and most-respected contributors, as 'Filthy condescension from someone who should know better'.
For once this genuinely is brilliant news for the SNP. Gordon Brown is going to make a speech.
Scott, for once we agree , what are Labour thinking , Brown and Darling back on the scene. That will really help their cause and to crown it he is going to say vote NO to keep the Tories out in UK, what a divvy.
Brown crushed the SNP in the 2010 GE. Salmond was predicting 20 seats , he came up woefully short of that target.
LOL, Monica , Brown could not crush a grape, still you always give me a good laugh.
@Richard_Tyndall I had never suspected you previously of being a fan of great bureaucracy with all that form-checking. Who would you be employing to do that? Perhaps we would need to advertise for some Romanians and Bulgarians to fill those positions.
And it would be economic self-sabotage of the UK economy to prevent employers from selecting from a wider pool of potentially better-suited employees: it's not the fault of the immigrants that too many native British are under-educated and/or lazy.
Your final point is an example of the lump of labour fallacy.
George Bush? He’s mad... Shock truth about BBC bias
SENIOR BBC journalists have unleashed vitriolic attacks on the corporation, describing it as “completely out of touch with the real world”.
From the article -
“On Europe: I mean anybody who suggests Europe might not be a good thing is as mad as a box of frogs. On the environment: Anybody who suggests that environmentalists might be overstating the case is absolutely barking.”
According to a senior TV news reporter, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, now Work and Pensions Secretary, was considered by BBC staff to be “useless”.
And I love this bit from the article-
A freelance producer adds: “Throughout the BBC there is a politically correct, pro-Labour culture, which is completely out of touch with the real world. The BBC is almost like some social democratic republic. They drink among themselves, they eat together, they sleep together, they marry each other. The BBC is a very incestuous place.”
Apart from Boston they seem to be up 6% or 7% max against Con, so if the national projection numbers are right: CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%
...then contrary to the way the Survation guy is spinning it, that doesn't really seem to conflict with the standard assumptions that FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election.
Survation make the point that "UKIP appear to have reached their “tipping point” at their current level of popularity where their vote begins to “cluster” allowing first-past-the-post victories."
That's what I'm getting at: They don't actually make that point - they just say it. Their actual numbers say the opposite.
A national equivalent of 22% scores them a grand total of 6 seats (plus possibly a few more where there were no local elections). A 4% swing from UKIP to Con between the local election and the general electxion gives every seat back to Con except Boston and Skegness, and a 6% swing - which is still a very decent performance by UKIP - leaves them with just less than one.
The accuracy of the pollsters re UKIP seems to be the question. The "national equivalent" produced 22%, at the same time YouGov were giving 10-12%.
Are you saying you don't believe the 22% national equivalent number (which is based on actual votes, not polling), or are you saying you think they'll get more than 22%?
What I'm saying is that on Survation's numbers it still looks like FPTP is going to eat UKIP for breakfast, because on 22% they only get 6-plus-a-bit seats, and on 15% they probably don't get any at all.
There's obviously a point somewhere where being spread thinly turns into a feature not a bug, eg if they get into the high 40s they win pretty much every seat in the country, but on any plausible score it still looks like FPTP is going to give them a kicking.
I'm saying that two different organisations predicted UKIP's vote share with a 10% gap, at the same time. I'm saying that movement of UKIP's share in the polls (dominated by YouGov) is something to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
OK, so that's not a point against mine: Whatever plausible share UKIP get at the next general election, the data that Survation are working from still suggests that FPTP will put a pillow over its face and wait until it stops twitching. We're talking about zero seats if they score in the mid-teens, or single-digits if they score in the low 20s.
BTW, I'm not sure that your polling comparison is right. Aren't the numbers you're talking about general election polls? General elections are different to local elections, and usually much more friendly to larger parties. So the pollsters may be right about what would happen if there was a general election tomorrow.
If you are going to be insisting on genetlemanly standards of exchange, might I suggest that you don't characterise a contribution from one of PB's longest standing and most-respected contributors, as 'Filthy condescension from someone who should know better'.
You could suggest it but I would have to disagree.
I recognise Nick Palmer is well respected on here, thats why I think he should know better than to damn UKIP voters with faint praise and insinuate they are motivated by racism.
With the greatest respect, that is why Labour fail to connect with working class voters. He couldnt help himself, he had to get a dig in at people who feel betrayed by his party.
A senior television editor reveals: “Just after the fall of Thatcher, my head of department took me to a meeting with John Birt, who at that time was vice or deputy director general. My boss asked me what we would do if Labour formed the next Government. John Birt replied: ‘Let’s hope the **** they do.’ I couldn’t believe how candid he was.”
@Socrates How many Romanians and Bulgarians have UKIP given the impression that they would be letting into the UK?
Hint, x on this occasion is not greater than 0.
The impression they have given is that as many can come to the UK as would like to, whether we like it or not.
That is also the truth
Who knows how many there will be? Last time with the Poles it aws grossly underestimated, then deflected by writing it off as a good thing there were so many by the left.
People who dont mind that should vote for one of the big three, people who worry there may be too many for their liking can vote UKIP
Comments
Sorry to see you buying into that.
I am not buying into sneering innuendo or condescension. It's more that Sam and GeoffM seem to be as uncomprehending of Nick's views as they believe he is of theirs.
It's all very simple Kippers are voting for something new, not old, and dont trust the Con/Lab/lib party to do anything, anything at all.
http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf
Initially there would be a referendum to withdraw from the EU with UKIP campaigning for uis to leave.
If the vote was in favour of leaving then this would put us in the position of being out of the EU but inside the EEA which we are a separate signatory to. This would mean that we would immediately have greater control over immigration because like Norway free movement would be limited to those in employment or financially independent.
At that point the debate would then be held as to whether we should withdraw entirely from the EEA and apply for membership of EFTA - so allowing us access to large sections of the single market as well as a free trade agreements with many other countries whilst allowing more fundamental control of migration.
It is this last point that UKIP have not yet decided upon as I read it. Personally I think the EFTA route is far better. But even so the move from the EU to the EEA would be a step that would bring far more benefits including much better control of our own borders and would certainly help to deal with one of the issues which concern people (rightly or wrongly) which is migration of those without employment from EU countries to the UK.
http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/generator/gen2.html
the javascript source code is particularly fun
Trumpington Meadows is an interesting one - they were talking about building there when I first moved down to Cambridge in 1997. It'll be handy for the M11 and the various bus services into the city centre. There're worse places to build.
I'm for construction on the Oakington site (Northstowe). I'm for development on the Waterbeach Barracks site.
The one development I am dead against is the Marshalls airport site, at least without a massive and probably infeasible upgrade to the Newmarket Road.
Cambridge is a hot housing area: it is appealing to many people, and not just from the tech sector. Both myself and my wife are incomers, and have been here, on and off, for over 25 years between us. We rented for years, and have only recently bought a house in Cambourne. We did not buy for an investment, or for rising property prices - we just wanted somewhere that we could call our own after living in a succession of rented properties.
If Cambourne had not been developed, we may have not been able to afford a house, and that may have forced us to look in another area for work. That would have deprived my wife's firm of an excellent engineer, and the firms I work for of a merely competent one.
And this matters. As an example: we moved back up to Cambridge over two years ago from a firm near Southampton. My wife leaving, along with another engineer, closed down that part of the division - they couldn't get the staff. The work was transferred to Switzerland.
From my house, I can walk for three minutes and visit four engineers who I have worked with in the past.
If you want Cambridge to thrive, you should consider how to attract people like us into the area.
Finally, your attitude of "He'll be able to vote for any of the other three main parties at the next GE." is hardly endearing for someone who wants me, or people like me, to vote for him.
Would you like to apologise for misquoting me yet? Remember when you made up something I didn't say to advance your argument?
Come on, be a gentleman.
At that point there would be huge amounts of negotiation to be done depending on what we wished our future status to be but that does not change the basic position regarding the EU and the ability to withdraw.
1) Britain has no automatic right to join EFTA.
2) Describing membership of the EEA as giving "much better control of our own borders" is fantasy.
But apart from that, it's a well worked-through policy.
You see, it's all about succession policy; who succeeds us. If you more or less stop immigrants taking us place then you need a higher birth rate to maintain the population.
Notably, the Greens are very pro-gay, but they of course are perfectly happy with a reducing population.
Which I was surprised to see was allowed.
Membership of the EEA does give you better control of your borders. That is exactly the case with Norway where they are able to dictate that only those with employment are allowed to settle.
Come on, be a gentleman.
I have nothing to apologise for. You had a period during which you seemed to refer to the "white working class" as some kind of monolithic institution with a single way of viewing the world. I merely pointed out that if that is what you thought, you were wrong. You said you didn't think that. End of story.
Your turn.
I said there were "plenty" of working class people who were in favour of Grammar schools
You said that I was wrong to say "all" working class people were in favour of grammar schools and that I shouldnt present them as a monolith
I hadnt done so. It was there for all to see. You had misread what I said and in your rush to disagree with me, misquoted me.
But if you think that doesnt break the rules of ettiquette on a website for political debate, we know where you stand and can treat you accordingly
You said that I was wrong to say "all" working class people were in favour of grammar schools and that I shouldnt present them as a monolith
I hadnt done so. It was there for all to see. You had misread what I said and in your rush to disagree with me, misquoted me.
But if you think that doesnt break the rules of ettiquette on a website for political debate, we know where you stand and can treat you accordingly
Indeed. On this internet message board you can make whatever judgements you like about me. I promise not to be offended.
And on that note, I'm going to pop across the border to watch the Formula1 in a Spanish bar. Hasta luego.
This gives them the perfect platform to persuade others to abandon David Cameron without even mentioning gay marriage, which if you continually bang on about makes you look weird and obsessive.
Furthermore, looking at the data provided, it appears there is plenty left to squeeze in the remaining Tory vote on a religious freedom platform.
As an aside, I note that the closure/disaffiliation of the Catholic adoption agencies is still an issue, despite it taking place under Blair. This puts pay to any idea that Dopey Dave has that gay marriage will be forgotten about after the bill's passage.
Ireland is planning half naked male dancers.
I think you are a coward who uses lies to further his argument
How can any polite person who misquotes someone in a debate, fail to apologise, even if they disagree with the person generally?
This sounds like Gove positioning himself to replace Cameron.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10052025/Michael-Gove-Nick-Clegg-only-blocking-our-childcare-reforms-to-stop-a-Vince-Cable-coup.html
http://www.efdgroup.eu/medias/videos/item/nigel-farage-eea-farage-s-response-to-pm-cameron.html
1. Guardian leftie
2. New Statesman leftie
3. FT europhile with centrist leanings.
Andrew Neil, how can this be called balance? Not even one eurosceptic amongst them.
Yesterday, the electoral college was meeting in a number of regions. Many sitting MEPs (the 3 London ones, the Welsh lady, Julie Girling & Ashley Fox in SW, Emma McClarkin, Saj Karim & Jacqueline Foster in NW) tweeted yesterday that they have been re-selected/re-adopted.
By "re-selected" or "re-adopted", do they likely mean they earned a place on the candidate list or that they got the top spots?
In the Welsh case, it seems she assured the top of the list as some MPs and AMs tweeted their congratulations specyfing "reselected as top candidare" or "lead candidate".
If all others are reselected with right to be ranked before new candidates, it means that the decisive part of the selection process is basically finished as in many regions as there won't be more winnable places after current incumbents.
You are entitled to your views. I think you are someone who sometimes misunderstands and misinterprets other people's posts, and likes to talk about big groups of people as single entities when, in fact, the reality is far more nuanced. You also seem to take offence when none is meant. And you seem to be very focused on ethnicity. Perhaps we are wrong about each other.
It is quite amusing, is it not, for one anonymous poster on an internet message board to accuse another anonymous poster of cowardice?
It's a great visit if you like real ale. It is the UK's second largest beer festival, and has such a plethora of beverages that it demands at least two visits every year.
http://www.cambridgebeerfestival.com/viewnode.php?id=3
(*) According to long-held tradition, the half-naked male dancing will, sadly, be performed by myself. Imagine a furball and you won't be too far from the mark. :-)
is he complaining they are copying what he has done for over a decade?
http://survation.com/2013/05/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/
Apart from Boston they seem to be up 6% or 7% max against Con, so if the national projection numbers are right:
CON 26%, LAB 29%, LD 13%, Ukip 22%
...then contrary to the way the Survation guy is spinning it, that doesn't really seem to conflict with the standard assumptions that FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election.
Every time immigration is mentioned, most people talk about big groups of people as single entities. The left more so than the right IMO.
We both know I didnt talk about working class people as a monolith, I said "plenty of working class people", so I deliberately didnt do what you claimed that I did.
Its not that I am offended, that word is overused. i just like to play with a straight bat and thought most people would too.
It is not really all that amusing. For one my name is Sam, Samuel Knowles. I am not anonyomous. When we disagreed on Dagenham and white brits leaving, I offered to meet you in the area for a pint and to talk to people that had move or were thinking of moving.
When I debate with you, I try to take care to make sure I answer what you say, not what I interptret you to mean. All I asked for was an apology when you misquoted me, I dont see why that is beyond you.
No body was better off as a result, but at least the government got to "send a message" that they "cared" about "equal rights" (except for the religious)
There would be almost 3,000 fewer posts on here if that were to happen!
EDIT
"FPTP is going to eat them for breakfast if they're still in the teens in the general election."
Immediately before the local elections YouGov had UKIP at 10%.
Immediately after the local elections YouGov had UKIP at 12%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2013
I also provided a link to an article in Catholic Herald (albeit about Scotland - don't know if this is a devolved area or not) saying that the agencies were being threatened with the loss of charitable status.
It is a completely coherent position and the Europhiles are simply trying to misrepresent it because they have no real arguments against it.
There would be almost 3,000 fewer posts on here if that were to happen!
Tim has only posted 2,904 times...who are the other offenders ;-)
I did.
Your turn to disprove your claims.
A national equivalent of 22% scores them a grand total of 6 seats (plus possibly a few more where there were no local elections). A 4% swing from UKIP to Con between the local election and the general electxion gives every seat back to Con except Boston and Skegness, and a 6% swing - which is still a very decent performance by UKIP - leaves them with just less than one.
What I'm saying is that on Survation's numbers it still looks like FPTP is going to eat UKIP for breakfast, because on 22% they only get 6-plus-a-bit seats, and on 15% they probably don't get any at all.
There's obviously a point somewhere where being spread thinly turns into a feature not a bug, eg if they get into the high 40s they win pretty much every seat in the country, but on any plausible score it still looks like FPTP is going to give them a kicking.
Don't you believe that the Guardian is a quality newspaper?
I also look forward to Speaker Bercow calling "Mr Nigel Farage" in debates !! .... where will he sit on the Opposition benches - far right or perhaps behind Denis Skinner and Nick Palmer .... Oopps let that one out of the bag !!
They would also stop the minority who are coming without employment as soon as we leave the EU. Just because they're not the majority doesn't make that "nothing".
He didnt insult me, he just made up something that I didnt say and then refused to apologise for doing so.
It being the internet is neither here nor there
If there are large numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians coming to Britain (and I have no way of knowing whether there are or not) then as members of the EU we cannot stop them. As members of EEA they would have to have proof of employment here before they would be allowed to enter. Unless you are claiming there are tens of thousands of jobs which have miraculously been created for any Eastern Europeans who might be planning on coming to Britain then your whole argument is utterly false.
Back to not countering actual arguments and just insulting your opponents, I see.
You are the one that thinks x<50% means x=0.
Mindset tim - Britain is geographically part of Europe.
If you are going to be insisting on genetlemanly standards of exchange, might I suggest that you don't characterise a contribution from one of PB's longest standing and most-respected contributors, as 'Filthy condescension from someone who should know better'.
And it would be economic self-sabotage of the UK economy to prevent employers from selecting from a wider pool of potentially better-suited employees: it's not the fault of the immigrants that too many native British are under-educated and/or lazy.
Your final point is an example of the lump of labour fallacy.
Hint, x on this occasion is not greater than 0.
SENIOR BBC journalists have unleashed vitriolic attacks on the corporation, describing it as “completely out of touch with the real world”.
From the article -
“On Europe: I mean anybody who suggests Europe might not be a good thing is as mad as a box of frogs. On the environment: Anybody who suggests that environmentalists might be overstating the case is absolutely barking.”
According to a senior TV news reporter, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, now Work and Pensions Secretary, was considered by BBC staff to be “useless”.
And I love this bit from the article-
A freelance producer adds: “Throughout the BBC there is a politically correct, pro-Labour culture, which is completely out of touch with the real world. The BBC is almost like some social democratic republic. They drink among themselves, they eat together, they sleep together, they marry each other. The BBC is a very incestuous place.”
LOL
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/398916/George-Bush-He-s-mad-Shock-truth-about-BBC-bias
BTW, I'm not sure that your polling comparison is right. Aren't the numbers you're talking about general election polls? General elections are different to local elections, and usually much more friendly to larger parties. So the pollsters may be right about what would happen if there was a general election tomorrow.
I recognise Nick Palmer is well respected on here, thats why I think he should know better than to damn UKIP voters with faint praise and insinuate they are motivated by racism.
With the greatest respect, that is why Labour fail to connect with working class voters. He couldnt help himself, he had to get a dig in at people who feel betrayed by his party.
I was attacking his argument, not him personally.
That is also the truth
Who knows how many there will be? Last time with the Poles it aws grossly underestimated, then deflected by writing it off as a good thing there were so many by the left.
People who dont mind that should vote for one of the big three, people who worry there may be too many for their liking can vote UKIP