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

13»

Comments

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Scott_P said:

    For once this genuinely is brilliant news for the SNP. Gordon Brown is going to make a speech.

    Fact: Labour under Gordon Brown did not lose any seats in Scotland at the last general election. A truly remarkable performance in the circumstances.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    "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"

    Increasing the supply of labour leads to a reduction in its worth ie downward pressure on pay rates.

    Leading to inevitably other potential workers deciding its not worth their while to look for low paid unpleasant work but to instead live off welfare and have their time for themselves.

    Unlimited low skilled immigration isn't compatible with a country with both a generous welfare state and a high cost of living.

    Alternatively increased low skilled immigration could also lead to lower average productivity in the workforce and lower business investment as more low skilled workers are employed rather than new plant and equipment purchased.

    That scenario isn't compatible with the maintenance of high general living standards in this country as we will be outcompeted by increasingly skilled and productive foreign competitors.

    In reality we seem to be getting aspects of both negatives - a large welfare dependent underclass and falling productivity.

    But at least the rich are getting richer so the political and business 'elite' are happy.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    tim said:

    @DavidWooding: UKIP on course to deliver 8 MPs at expense of Tories, according to this analysis. http://t.co/5mtM1233pO

    8/1 that Farage stands against Sandys

    Full thing here - it seems to be just adding up the local election votes for the wards in each constituency.
    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.
    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.
    Good Afternoon all. E in T is still hoping that UKIP will disappear from the political map. Chortle!

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    antifrank said:

    @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.

    When did they ever give this impression? Can you post a statement where they have said this? Or one where they have even implied this? Or is your evidence merely "pixie dust"?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    sam said:

    Sam,

    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.

    I was attacking his argument, not him personally.




    "That is why Labour fails to connect with working class voters"

    There's that great big monolith I was talking about.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    tim said:

    @DavidWooding: UKIP on course to deliver 8 MPs at expense of Tories, according to this analysis. http://t.co/5mtM1233pO

    8/1 that Farage stands against Sandys

    Full thing here - it seems to be just adding up the local election votes for the wards in each constituency.
    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.
    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.
    UKIP are looking at precisely the same sort of situation that the SDP faced in 1983. Loads of votes, only a handful of seats, at best. This is, of course, a lot better than looked likely 12 months ago, which was many votes but no chance of a seat.

    The risk for UKIP is that a lot of people will be disheartened by the experience of voting for UKIP in 2015 and it not leading to anything. The perception that voting UKIP is a wasted vote will be given enormous credence by the experience of millions of people.

    I wonder if Ashcroft will include some UKIP target seats if he does another marginals mega-poll. If we have that in 6-9 months time it will show whether the existence of UKIP councillors is helping UKIP to start clustering their vote.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    edited May 2013

    sam said:

    Sam,

    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.

    I was attacking his argument, not him personally.




    "That is why Labour fails to connect with working class voters"

    There's that great big monolith I was talking about.

    Sorry, on this occasion you are right...."is failing to connect with with many working class voters" or " is losing the votes of many working class voters to UKIP" would have been a better way of expressing myself there.

    See its easily done this apologising. Maybe you should try it when you misquote someone.

    Do you want to apologise for the time you misquoted me?

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    MikeK said:

    tim said:

    @DavidWooding: UKIP on course to deliver 8 MPs at expense of Tories, according to this analysis. http://t.co/5mtM1233pO

    8/1 that Farage stands against Sandys

    Full thing here - it seems to be just adding up the local election votes for the wards in each constituency.
    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.
    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.
    Good Afternoon all. E in T is still hoping that UKIP will disappear from the political map. Chortle!

    Not being a fan of Tories winning seats I'm quite happy to have them on the political map. But:
    1) I think their general election performance will be well below their local election performance.
    2) I don't think they'll win many seats, and I think they may well win zero.

    Out of interest, what would be your best guess for:
    1) UKIP GB vote share
    2) UKIP number of seats won, excluding Con defectors
    at the next general election?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    antifrank said:

    @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.

    Now, now, antifrank! Stop biting at the bit; get back between the shaft's. Ah, there, there. feeling better now? You really must stop these Romanians and Bulgars upsetting you. ;)

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    antifrank said:

    @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.

    I am a fan of properly controlled borders. The idea that such a thing should not be done because it entails unnecessary amounts of paperwork is just ludicrous.

    Nor do I suggest that we should stop employers employing people from overseas but I am sure you are one of those I have heard in the past talking about businesses having a social conscience. That should apply to employing local candidates for jobs where possible rather than bussing in people from the other side of the continent.
  • As a long term UKIP voter I find the stances (anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage) which have supposedly encouraged this big surge in support quite alienating.

    I do think the immigration system as it stands is somewhat misguided and I agree we have to be out of Europe to change it significantly, but I don't have a problem with the scale of immigration (more with the state's failure to deal with the implications and its inability to discriminate wisely between would be immigrants).

    As for gay marriage, I don't think the state should have anything to do with marriage whatsoever, but I don't like the motivation of most of those against it, just as I don't like the motivation of most of those against immigration (which isn't necessarily racist, as much as based on bad economics and bad assumptions (maybe valid within the EU context but that's moot for UKIP) about the inevitability of equal welfare state treatment for immigrants).

    But UKIP is a vehicle toward greater self-determination so I think I will continue to vote UKIP, just as I sometimes vote SNP.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited May 2013

    tim said:

    @DavidWooding: UKIP on course to deliver 8 MPs at expense of Tories, according to this analysis. http://t.co/5mtM1233pO

    8/1 that Farage stands against Sandys

    Full thing here - it seems to be just adding up the local election votes for the wards in each constituency.
    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.
    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.
    UKIP are looking at precisely the same sort of situation that the SDP faced in 1983. Loads of votes, only a handful of seats, at best. This is, of course, a lot better than looked likely 12 months ago, which was many votes but no chance of a seat.

    The risk for UKIP is that a lot of people will be disheartened by the experience of voting for UKIP in 2015 and it not leading to anything. The perception that voting UKIP is a wasted vote will be given enormous credence by the experience of millions of people.

    I wonder if Ashcroft will include some UKIP target seats if he does another marginals mega-poll. If we have that in 6-9 months time it will show whether the existence of UKIP councillors is helping UKIP to start clustering their vote.
    A well argued point, that I believe to be erroneous in this instance. Times have moved on; this no longer 1983 and UKIP are not the SDP. UKIP are now laying a power base. Are now moving onto new London premises as HQ, said to be Boris' old HQ for his mayoral fight. No, everything is changing and this is UKIPs big chance, and they seem to be taking it with both hands.

  • RicardohosRicardohos Posts: 258
    Wow just seen about Michael Gove's comments about leaving the EU. BBC are leading with it. Incredible timing. Wonder what Cameron thinks about his remarks.
    www.bbc.co.uk/news
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    One of the more interesting things on this thread was Tim's observation that the Lib Dems hate Gove more than any virtually anyone else on the planet. He also seems to be very unpopular amongst a number of teachers (including my niece). As he is the news flavour of the day anyone care to enlighten us all as to why this is. I assume not all teachers are Lib Dems or vice versa ;-)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    sam said:

    sam said:

    Sam,

    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.

    I was attacking his argument, not him personally.




    "That is why Labour fails to connect with working class voters"

    There's that great big monolith I was talking about.

    Sorry, on this occasion you are right...."is failing to connect with with many working class voters" or " is losing the votes of many working class voters to UKIP" would have been a better way of expressing myself there.

    See its easily done this apologising. Maybe you should try it when you misquote someone.

    Do you want to apologise for the time you misquoted me?

    I did not misquote you. I may have misinterpreted your views, but I do not think I did, as your post below seems to indicate. You will not get an apology from me. Feel free to believe I am a coward and a liar.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Wow just seen about Michael Gove's comments about leaving the EU. BBC are leading with it. Incredible timing. Wonder what Cameron thinks about his remarks.
    www.bbc.co.uk/news

    Interesting. I have some money on him for next leader.
  • campagvelocetcampagvelocet Posts: 4
    edited May 2013
    Financier said:



    Daily Mail sez:

    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.

    How about convincing the voters with some innovative approaches which they can plausibly argue will save money? That would help to show that they have left economic cloud cuckoo land.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited May 2013

    MikeK said:

    tim said:

    @DavidWooding: UKIP on course to deliver 8 MPs at expense of Tories, according to this analysis. http://t.co/5mtM1233pO

    8/1 that Farage stands against Sandys

    Full thing here - it seems to be just adding up the local election votes for the wards in each constituency.
    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.
    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.
    Good Afternoon all. E in T is still hoping that UKIP will disappear from the political map. Chortle!

    Not being a fan of Tories winning seats I'm quite happy to have them on the political map. But:
    1) I think their general election performance will be well below their local election performance.
    2) I don't think they'll win many seats, and I think they may well win zero.

    Out of interest, what would be your best guess for:
    1) UKIP GB vote share
    2) UKIP number of seats won, excluding Con defectors
    at the next general election?
    I'm not a seer, so I won't play long range guessing games. I will however say this. If UKIP come top in the EU elections next year, I expect UKIP vote share to exceed May 2nd's in 2015.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MikeK said:

    tim said:

    @DavidWooding: UKIP on course to deliver 8 MPs at expense of Tories, according to this analysis. http://t.co/5mtM1233pO

    8/1 that Farage stands against Sandys

    Full thing here - it seems to be just adding up the local election votes for the wards in each constituency.
    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.
    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.
    UKIP are looking at precisely the same sort of situation that the SDP faced in 1983. Loads of votes, only a handful of seats, at best. This is, of course, a lot better than looked likely 12 months ago, which was many votes but no chance of a seat.

    The risk for UKIP is that a lot of people will be disheartened by the experience of voting for UKIP in 2015 and it not leading to anything. The perception that voting UKIP is a wasted vote will be given enormous credence by the experience of millions of people.

    I wonder if Ashcroft will include some UKIP target seats if he does another marginals mega-poll. If we have that in 6-9 months time it will show whether the existence of UKIP councillors is helping UKIP to start clustering their vote.
    A well argued point, that I believe to be erroneous in this instance. Times have moved on; this no longer 1983 and UKIP are not the SDP. UKIP are now laying a power base. Are now moving onto new London premises as HQ, said to be Boris' old HQ for his mayoral fight. No everything is changing and this is UKIPs big chance, and they seem to be taking it with both hands.

    I wouldnt expect a repeat of the SDP. UKIP has the boost of the Euros next year, so European policy is a legitimate subject compared with the locals. There is no Falklands factor. UKIP have some target seats laid out for them.

    If the coalition collapses after/around the Euros we may get an early election.
  • PBModeratorPBModerator Posts: 660
    Sam and Southam Observer. Your particular conversation is now CLOSED. Please talk about something else.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    tim said:

    @Charles

    You can't even name one agency that closed can you.
    You may as well,claim "lots of B&Bs closed due to the court ruling on gay couples"

    You're starting to get irritating, Tim.

    You're on the internet, why don't you try and find out yourself?

    There is only one remaining Catholic adoption agency in England and that's Catholic Care up in the RC Diocese of Leeds.

    Now, this is of more general interest.

    1. This bizarre obsession with gay marriage has completely ruined any chance of Cameron's Big Society working. You know, that thing that was supposed to replace the State that he is cutting back. Great vote-winner there.

    2. As the Catholic adoption agencies prove, the religious will close down organisations rather than be complicit in going against their faith. If, as Mike surmises, a lot have gone to UKIP, then they will not be coming back to Cameron's Tories under any circumstances. Worse, this refusal to co-operate in their own marginalisation could spread to non-religious UKIPpers and they will try and ensure Cameron's defeat to enable a political realignment to take place, as per article on PB yesterday.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    MikeK said:


    I'm not a seer, so I won't play long range guessing games.

    You don't need to be a seer, you need to look at the data and the previous patterns, think through the politics and make educated guesses. This is sort-of the point of the site.
    MikeK said:

    I will however say this. If UKIP come top in the EU elections next year, I expect UKIP vote share to exceed May 2nd's in 2015.

    No shit.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    tim said:

    @DavidWooding: UKIP on course to deliver 8 MPs at expense of Tories, according to this analysis. http://t.co/5mtM1233pO

    8/1 that Farage stands against Sandys

    Full thing here - it seems to be just adding up the local election votes for the wards in each constituency.
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Fair point.

    However what polls are useful for is revealing trends and relative standing, if not absolute numbers. So if nothing else we can see how UKIP performs in comparison to their position in early May 2013, and how they perform relative to other parties from that point.

    What Survation's analysis is useful for is that it demonstrates that UKIP's support is not hopelessly diffuse. Their candidates can win Westminster seats. They're at or near the point where their candidates will Westminster seats. And they now know where to target their efforts.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136


    What Survation's analysis is useful for is that it demonstrates that UKIP's support is not hopelessly diffuse. Their candidates can win Westminster seats. They're at or near the point where their candidates will Westminster seats. And they now know where to target their efforts.

    What does "hopelessly diffuse" mean? If it means that it's impossible for them to win seats on any vote share, nobody was ever saying it was hopelessly diffuse in the first place.

    More plausibly it means they'd win single-digit seat totals on double-digit vote shares, and no seats at all on low-teen vote shares. In which case what their analysis demonstrates is that their support _is_ hopelessly diffuse.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    MikeK said:


    I'm not a seer, so I won't play long range guessing games.

    You don't need to be a seer, you need to look at the data and the previous patterns, think through the politics and make educated guesses. This is sort-of the point of the site.
    MikeK said:

    I will however say this. If UKIP come top in the EU elections next year, I expect UKIP vote share to exceed May 2nd's in 2015.

    No shit.
    No shit! UKIP is now breaking all earlier patterns, your coveted data is not worth a spill of beans. Learn to live with it.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited May 2013
    tim said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    Anyone know UkIP policy on all those millions of Brits in Europe?

    I dont know it, but I would imagine it would be the same as for current immigrants in Britain.
    So they expect brits not working to be returning?
    Being deliberately misleading again Tim. The Norway measure is either employed or able to prove an income independent of the the state. Certainly the Spanish are not going to argue with all the pension money being transferred from UK pension firms to shops and businesses in Spain via retirees.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Well I'm off to watch golf and perhaps 40 winks in between holes. LOL
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013


    What Survation's analysis is useful for is that it demonstrates that UKIP's support is not hopelessly diffuse. Their candidates can win Westminster seats. They're at or near the point where their candidates will Westminster seats. And they now know where to target their efforts.

    If it means that it's impossible for them to win seats on any vote share, nobody was ever saying it was hopelessly diffuse in the first place.
    That's not the impression I got.

    If the next election produces a minority government, it's not clear to me how many MPs UKIP needs to have in order to influence government policy. Would 8 MPs be worth courting? 16? 32?

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html

    EDIT
    And regardless of how many MPs they elect, UKIP's supporters will be courted by the other parties.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    edited May 2013

    tim said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    Anyone know UkIP policy on all those millions of Brits in Europe?

    I dont know it, but I would imagine it would be the same as for current immigrants in Britain.
    So they expect brits not working to be returning?
    Being deliberately misleading again Tim. The Norway measure is either employed or able to prove an income independent of the hist state. Certainly the Spanish are not going to argue with all the pension money being transferred from UK pension firms to shops and businesses in Spain via retirees.
    Precisely

    If the immigrants are realtively wealthy and spending their money in their new country then thats no problem.

    That isnt the case with uncontrolled mass immigration though


    Its why immigration of wealthy foreigners into West London isnt moaned about like the unskilled immigrants into Boston

    As reflected in elections
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    MikeK said:


    I'm not a seer, so I won't play long range guessing games.

    You don't need to be a seer, you need to look at the data and the previous patterns, think through the politics and make educated guesses. This is sort-of the point of the site.
    MikeK said:

    I will however say this. If UKIP come top in the EU elections next year, I expect UKIP vote share to exceed May 2nd's in 2015.

    No shit.
    To be fair, assuming I've read it right, that's a pretty ballsy prediction - he's basically saying assuming the bubble doesn't deflate in the next 12 months, then UKIP will get greater than 23% at the next general election.

    Hardly "no shit" response territory. I personally disagree - think they will be in the 7-9% range and 0-2 seats.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited May 2013

    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. .

    I'm sorry, Richard, you can't get away with that. For one thing, that is (as far as I'm aware) your policy, not UKIP's. I've been asking for days for a link to a coherent UKIP explanation of their policy. If there is one, could someone kindly post it?

    What we do know for certain is that it can't be what you describe. How do we know this? Because Nigel Farage, who presumably speaks with some authority, says (a) that UKIP would introduce a system of work permits for Eastern European workers - so that means leaving the EEA, and (b) also cites Norway as a role model, which means staying in the EEA.

    You can see why I'm confused.

    Or, rather, I'm not confused at all - UKIP are dishonest. Their claim of 'plain speaking' is risible - they are obfuscating like hell.

    FWIW, my own view is that are barmy not to rule out staying in the EEA I can see no conceivable reason to leave the EU but stay in the EEA, which would gives us less say, no vetos, and still land us with nearly all the disadvantages. But Farage is too frit to say it, isn't he?

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846



    Not being a fan of Tories winning seats I'm quite happy to have them on the political map. But:
    1) I think their general election performance will be well below their local election performance.
    2) I don't think they'll win many seats, and I think they may well win zero.

    Out of interest, what would be your best guess for:
    1) UKIP GB vote share
    2) UKIP number of seats won, excluding Con defectors
    at the next general election?

    If I can answer that as well Edmund

    1. Between 10 and 15% if they get their act together (not a sure thing by any means)
    2. 1 or 2 if they both get their ground game sorted and things fall right for them. More likely none.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    Norm said:

    One of the more interesting things on this thread was Tim's observation that the Lib Dems hate Gove more than any virtually anyone else on the planet. He also seems to be very unpopular amongst a number of teachers (including my niece). As he is the news flavour of the day anyone care to enlighten us all as to why this is. I assume not all teachers are Lib Dems or vice versa ;-)

    Anyone?

  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    sam said:

    tim said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    Anyone know UkIP policy on all those millions of Brits in Europe?

    I dont know it, but I would imagine it would be the same as for current immigrants in Britain.
    So they expect brits not working to be returning?
    Being deliberately misleading again Tim. The Norway measure is either employed or able to prove an income independent of the hist state. Certainly the Spanish are not going to argue with all the pension money being transferred from UK pension firms to shops and businesses in Spain via retirees.
    Precisely

    If the immigrants are realtively wealthy and spending their money in their new country then thats no problem.

    That isnt the case with uncontrolled mass immigration though


    Its why immigration of wealthy foreigners into West London isnt moaned about like the unskilled immigrants into Boston

    As reflected in elections
    The question is are the unskilled immigrants into Boston taking jobs that the unskilled locals don't want to do?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    tim said:

    @Charles

    You can't even name one agency that closed can you.
    You may as well,claim "lots of B&Bs closed due to the court ruling on gay couples"

    You're starting to get irritating, Tim.

    You're on the internet, why don't you try and find out yourself?

    There is only one remaining Catholic adoption agency in England and that's Catholic Care up in the RC Diocese of Leeds.

    Now, this is of more general interest.

    1. This bizarre obsession with gay marriage has completely ruined any chance of Cameron's Big Society working. You know, that thing that was supposed to replace the State that he is cutting back. Great vote-winner there.

    2. As the Catholic adoption agencies prove, the religious will close down organisations rather than be complicit in going against their faith. If, as Mike surmises, a lot have gone to UKIP, then they will not be coming back to Cameron's Tories under any circumstances. Worse, this refusal to co-operate in their own marginalisation could spread to non-religious UKIPpers and they will try and ensure Cameron's defeat to enable a political realignment to take place, as per article on PB yesterday.

    http://www.caritascare.org.uk/about/history/

    Took ten seconds to find that one, yet there's only one left is there?


    It talks about the Catholic church in the past tense though - "rooted in", "changing role", etc.

    Are you 100% sure it hasn't disaffiliated?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136


    What Survation's analysis is useful for is that it demonstrates that UKIP's support is not hopelessly diffuse. Their candidates can win Westminster seats. They're at or near the point where their candidates will Westminster seats. And they now know where to target their efforts.

    If it means that it's impossible for them to win seats on any vote share, nobody was ever saying it was hopelessly diffuse in the first place.
    That's not the impression I got.

    If the next election produces a minority government, it's not clear to me how many MPs UKIP needs to have in order to influence government policy. Would 8 MPs be worth courting? 16? 32?

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html

    EDIT
    And regardless of how many MPs they elect, UKIP's supporters will be courted by the other parties.
    Well, the Baxter piece you link shows a case where UKIP get 405 seats, so they're certainly not saying "impossible for them to win seats on any vote share". Like I said upthread there's a point where being spread evenly becomes an advantage, but you need a really big score to get there.

    That said, I'd quibble with Baxter the model there in that I'd expect them to win seats on the simulations with very low Con scores, eg.
    Con 25 UKIP 20 would win > 0 seats, and
    Con 23 UKIP 24 would win them more than 5.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    sam said:

    antifrank said:

    @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

    If Farage wants to leave the EU but be a member of the EEA what does that do to limit immigration from the EU?

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846



    I'm sorry, Richard, you can't get away with that. For one thing, that is (as far as I'm aware) your policy, not UKIP's. I've been asking for days for a link to a coherent UKIP explanation of their policy. If there is one, could someone kindly post it?

    What we do know for certain is that it can't be what you describe. How do we know this? Because Nigel Farage, who presumably speaks with some authority, says (a) that UKIP would introduce a system of work permits for Eastern European workers - so that means leaving the EEA, and (b) also cites Norway as a role model, which means staying in the EEA.

    You can see why I'm confused.

    Or, rather, I'm not confused at all - UKIP are dishonest. Their claim of 'plain speaking' is risible - they are obfuscating like hell.

    FWIW, my own view is that are barmy not to rule out staying in the EEA I can see no conceivable reason to leave the EU but stay in the EEA, which would gives us less say, no vetos, and still land us with nearly all the disadvantages. But Farage is too frit to say it, isn't he?

    He has repeatedly said that the EEA would only be a holding pattern whilst the country decides what to do next. That is exactly the position I outlined above. And it is a hell of a lot more coherent than Cameron's renegotiation position which does not set out either what he wants to renegotiate nor what he will do when the EU say no - which of course is now a certainty since he has already said he will not threaten to leave.

    I am afraid a Cameron supporter criticising the very straight forward position that Farage has set out is so far beyond pot calling kettle black as to be beyond parody.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Watford go through to playoff final after Knockheart misses penalty, then Watford score. Sounded similar to the Brentford/Doncaster ending.
  • Survation's analysis doesn't fully cover the extent of the UKIP uprising in the county council elections or its impact because not only were there seats in Kent which UKIP could potentially take (the three Survation identified) but it alse turned many Kent seats into two and three way marginals.

    My own rough calculations suggested UKIP were neck and neck with the Tories in Folkestone and Tunbridge Wells and if they had run a candidate in Dover North then Dover potentially would have shown itself to be a three way marginal. Not only that the UKIP impact brought Maidstone into play for the Libdems and Gravesham into play for Labour. Even in seats such as Ashford, Canterbury and Dartford a further 5% swing from Con to UKIP could bring those seats into play. With all three Medway seats likely marginal as well that only seemingly leaves Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Faversham that one could consider truly safe Tory seats.

    Whether the impact is as extensive in other counties such as Norfolk and Lincolnshire I don't know but even so whilst it potentially won't produce more than a handful of seats for UKIP it may have a considerable impact of the Tories campaigning strategy. How much resource should they put into what on the face of it should have been mainly safe seats? How much will shoring up their heartlands distract from protecting their marginals and attempting to take the additional seats they want for a majority (unlikely as such an achievement currently seems) and what sort of additional internal friction within the party will it create in the run up to the election.

    The fact that the Tories now have to fight on two opposite fronts makes life even more difficult for them.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited May 2013



    Not being a fan of Tories winning seats I'm quite happy to have them on the political map. But:
    1) I think their general election performance will be well below their local election performance.
    2) I don't think they'll win many seats, and I think they may well win zero.

    Out of interest, what would be your best guess for:
    1) UKIP GB vote share
    2) UKIP number of seats won, excluding Con defectors
    at the next general election?

    If I can answer that as well Edmund

    1. Between 10 and 15% if they get their act together (not a sure thing by any means)
    2. 1 or 2 if they both get their ground game sorted and things fall right for them. More likely none.
    Yup, looks about right to me.

    Those results would be a huge step forward them, though. There's that Bill Gates quote (about technology) that:
    "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. Don't let yourself be lulled into inaction."
    You probably need to double or triple those timescales for FPTP politics.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited May 2013
    @Richard_Tyndall: You keep telling me what Farage's position is, but I've searched and I can't find it.

    Link please.

    In any case, the EEA thing is an absolute either/or: either we leave, or we don't have control over immigration of workers from the EU and other EEA countries. So what on earth is the doubt about? If there's the possibility of staying in the EEA, that blows everything UKIP says about immigration and work permits out of the water.

    (Oh, and BTW: Why is it that every single UKIP supporter and politician, without exception, responds to any question about what UKIP's policy on anything is by insulting the Conservatives? How about telling us what UKIP's policy is? It would be a nice change)
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited May 2013


    What Survation's analysis is useful for is that it demonstrates that UKIP's support is not hopelessly diffuse. Their candidates can win Westminster seats. They're at or near the point where their candidates will Westminster seats. And they now know where to target their efforts.

    If it means that it's impossible for them to win seats on any vote share, nobody was ever saying it was hopelessly diffuse in the first place.
    That's not the impression I got.

    If the next election produces a minority government, it's not clear to me how many MPs UKIP needs to have in order to influence government policy. Would 8 MPs be worth courting? 16? 32?

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_UKIP.html

    EDIT
    And regardless of how many MPs they elect, UKIP's supporters will be courted by the other parties.
    Well, the Baxter piece you link shows a case where UKIP get 405 seats, so they're certainly not saying "impossible for them to win seats on any vote share". Like I said upthread there's a point where being spread evenly becomes an advantage, but you need a really big score to get there.

    That said, I'd quibble with Baxter the model there in that I'd expect them to win seats on the simulations with very low Con scores, eg.
    Con 25 UKIP 20 would win > 0 seats, and
    Con 23 UKIP 24 would win them more than 5.
    The numbers are not going to be absolute. But the shape is interesting. 5 > 79 > 240.

    Survation's profile of UKIP support seems to fit better with the first table.

    http://survation.com/2013/05/local-elections-2013-seat-projections-too-conservative/

    And if we take the NEV local election numbers, and couple that with Survation's 8/9 seat prediction, then they seem valid.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    perdix said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    Anyone know UkIP policy on all those millions of Brits in Europe?

    I dont know it, but I would imagine it would be the same as for current immigrants in Britain.
    So they expect brits not working to be returning?
    Being deliberately misleading again Tim. The Norway measure is either employed or able to prove an income independent of the hist state. Certainly the Spanish are not going to argue with all the pension money being transferred from UK pension firms to shops and businesses in Spain via retirees.
    Precisely

    If the immigrants are realtively wealthy and spending their money in their new country then thats no problem.

    That isnt the case with uncontrolled mass immigration though


    Its why immigration of wealthy foreigners into West London isnt moaned about like the unskilled immigrants into Boston

    As reflected in elections
    The question is are the unskilled immigrants into Boston taking jobs that the unskilled locals don't want to do?

    I would say yes they are. The problem is with English lazy youth not the hard working immigrants

    To me this argument is similar to the one on welfare. Some people think by making the life on benefit less attractive it will encourage people to work. If we stopped unskilled immigration and made people under 30 who had been unemployed for 6 months take these agricultural jobs in Boston, then what would be the problem?


  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    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. .

    I'm sorry, Richard, you can't get away with that. For one thing, that is (as far as I'm aware) your policy, not UKIP's. I've been asking for days for a link to a coherent UKIP explanation of their policy. If there is one, could someone kindly post it?

    What we do know for certain is that it can't be what you describe. How do we know this? Because Nigel Farage, who presumably speaks with some authority, says (a) that UKIP would introduce a system of work permits for Eastern European workers - so that means leaving the EEA, and (b) also cites Norway as a role model, which means staying in the EEA.

    You can see why I'm confused.

    Or, rather, I'm not confused at all - UKIP are dishonest. Their claim of 'plain speaking' is risible - they are obfuscating like hell.

    FWIW, my own view is that are barmy not to rule out staying in the EEA I can see no conceivable reason to leave the EU but stay in the EEA, which would gives us less say, no vetos, and still land us with nearly all the disadvantages. But Farage is too frit to say it, isn't he?

    Richard, you clearly are someone that will never give UKIP a fair hearing, but for other people reading on here:

    1) UKIP will use the EEA as a "holding position" while we negotiate our own trade treaty.
    2) Depending on the point you're making, you can use someone as an example of a role model without wanting to mirror their arrangements exactly.
    3) It is a bit rich for a die-hard supporter of the Conservatives, who won't say what they want to repatriate, what they want to reform, or indeed whether their overall plan is repatriation or reform, to accuse other parties of obfuscation in their plans.
    4) It is hugely dishonest for the major parties, including the Conservatives, to use as their main argument for staying in the EU access to the single market, when those proposing leaving it have made clear we would maintain a trade deal under which we would maintain that access
    5) The EEA has many advantages over the EU, including:
    - vastly reduced membership fees
    - control over EU migrants without a job in the UK
    - the elimination of EU rules on the vast majority of our economic activity that is domestic or goes to other countries
    - the ability to unilaterally reduce food costs through no CAP
    - the ability to reduce trade barriers with other export markets through bilateral deals
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    tim said:

    tim said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    Anyone know UkIP policy on all those millions of Brits in Europe?

    I dont know it, but I would imagine it would be the same as for current immigrants in Britain.
    So they expect brits not working to be returning?
    Being deliberately misleading again Tim. The Norway measure is either employed or able to prove an income independent of the hist state. Certainly the Spanish are not going to argue with all the pension money being transferred from UK pension firms to shops and businesses in Spain via retirees.
    Could you link to UKIPs policy?

    Farage sets it out perfectly clearly

    http://www.efdgroup.eu/medias/videos/item/nigel-farage-eea-farage-s-response-to-pm-cameron.html

    Now, are you going to admit how misleading you have been about the EEA ability to limit migration?
  • samsam Posts: 727
    perdix said:

    sam said:

    antifrank said:

    @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

    If Farage wants to leave the EU but be a member of the EEA what does that do to limit immigration from the EU?

    Im no expert on policy, I would just vote UKIP rather than the others as at least I agree wit htheir general direction

    It seems that it is a step towards running our country rather than being run by the EU
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited May 2013
    Socrates said:


    Richard, you clearly are someone that will never give UKIP a fair hearing

    Absolute complete nonsense. I'm very happy to give UKIP, or anyone else, a fair hearing, once I know what they are proposing. But I've been asking for days the simplest of all possible simple questions: would UKIP leave the EEA or not?

    Just give me a link to a UKIP document which answers this. It can't be hard, can it? This is absolutely crucial to whether or not we would have control over the things UKIP says we should have control over.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    tim said:

    @Sam

    The Tory MP was claiming total unemployment of all ages is 1300 in the area, but there are 10,000 immigrants working in Boston area.

    The local people spoke the Thursday before last.

    Election Result vs Statistics

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    sam said:

    perdix said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    Anyone know UkIP policy on all those millions of Brits in Europe?

    I dont know it, but I would imagine it would be the same as for current immigrants in Britain.
    So they expect brits not working to be returning?
    Being deliberately misleading again Tim. The Norway measure is either employed or able to prove an income independent of the hist state. Certainly the Spanish are not going to argue with all the pension money being transferred from UK pension firms to shops and businesses in Spain via retirees.
    Precisely

    If the immigrants are realtively wealthy and spending their money in their new country then thats no problem.

    That isnt the case with uncontrolled mass immigration though


    Its why immigration of wealthy foreigners into West London isnt moaned about like the unskilled immigrants into Boston

    As reflected in elections
    The question is are the unskilled immigrants into Boston taking jobs that the unskilled locals don't want to do?

    I would say yes they are. The problem is with English lazy youth not the hard working immigrants

    To me this argument is similar to the one on welfare. Some people think by making the life on benefit less attractive it will encourage people to work. If we stopped unskilled immigration and made people under 30 who had been unemployed for 6 months take these agricultural jobs in Boston, then what would be the problem?


    My thoughts exactly. Not least as the unemployed of the fens are mostly descendents of agricultural workers.

    The alternative plan of importing low skilled migrants and have welfare dependency similtaneously is not a sensible one.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:


    Richard, you clearly are someone that will never give UKIP a fair hearing

    Absolute complete nonsense. I'm very happy to give UKIP, or anyone else, a fair hearing, once I know what they are proposing. But I've been asking for days the simplest of all possible simple questions: would UKIP leave the EEA or not?

    Just give me a link to a UKIP document which answers this. It can't be hard, can it? This is absolutely crucial to whether or not we would have control over the things UKIP says we should have control over.
    Yes, they would negotiate their own deal:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vXsk0jroOog#t=110s

    Can you please provide a link on what changes to our EU relationship the Conservatives would like to have? It can't be hard, can it? This is absolutely crucial to whether we can get an EU that the Conservatives say should work for Britain.
  • PBModeratorPBModerator Posts: 660
    NEW THREAD
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Charles said:

    MikeK said:


    I'm not a seer, so I won't play long range guessing games.

    You don't need to be a seer, you need to look at the data and the previous patterns, think through the politics and make educated guesses. This is sort-of the point of the site.
    MikeK said:

    I will however say this. If UKIP come top in the EU elections next year, I expect UKIP vote share to exceed May 2nd's in 2015.

    No shit.
    To be fair, assuming I've read it right, that's a pretty ballsy prediction - he's basically saying assuming the bubble doesn't deflate in the next 12 months, then UKIP will get greater than 23% at the next general election.

    Hardly "no shit" response territory. I personally disagree - think they will be in the 7-9% range and 0-2 seats.
    Ah, you're, right, I somehow parsed it as "If they come top in the EU elections, it will be with a higher vote share than the local elections". So yes, ballsy is putting it mildly.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846

    @Richard_Tyndall: You keep telling me what Farage's position is, but I've searched and I can't find it.

    Link please.

    In any case, the EEA thing is an absolute either/or: either we leave, or we don't have control over immigration of workers from the EU and other EEA countries. So what on earth is the doubt about? If there's the possibility of staying in the EEA, that blows everything UKIP says about immigration and work permits out of the water.

    (Oh, and BTW: Why is it that every single UKIP supporter and politician, without exception, responds to any question about what UKIP's policy on anything is by insulting the Conservatives? How about telling us what UKIP's policy is? It would be a nice change)

    Just provided the link in answer to Tim. Or rather one aof a number of separate occasions when this has been set out.

    As you will see and as has already been stated, EEA membership is not considered as a fixed final result. It is simply the natural consequence of leaving the EU since we are already separately EEA members. At that point we will then have a discussion as to what to do next. But the huge benefits of leaving the EU for a start will be worth doing before we even consider whether to remain in the EEA in the long term. And yes there will be far greater control of workers from the EEA/EU simply because they will not be able to come until they have employment and will have to leave once that employment ends.

    We insult conservatives because it appears to be the only language you understand. Certainly it is the only language you use when discussing UKIP so we naturally assumed that is how you like to be spoken to all the time. If it isn't then perhaps you should start by leading by example.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    sam said:

    tim said:

    @Sam

    The Tory MP was claiming total unemployment of all ages is 1300 in the area, but there are 10,000 immigrants working in Boston area.

    The local people spoke the Thursday before last.

    Election Result vs Statistics

    Precisely - I find it most peculiar that a few million real votes only a matter of days ago are being conveniently forgotten vs subsample fodder VI polls.

    Lefties and LDs are clearly very unnerved by what The Public think by choosing a righty agenda and Kippers despite all their contradictions and supposedly peculiar candidates.

    @Norm asked earlier why so much vitriol is pointed at Gove - well I can only assume that he represents everything many LDs and teachers don't like - independent schools, an end to the ideological nonsense that has ruined much of our education and the politically motivated propaganda that passes for *balance* in the teaching of many subjects.

    I'd clone himself - we could do with more of his Mr Brainy types in our schools.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,676
    perdix said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    sam said:

    tim said:

    Anyone know UkIP policy on all those millions of Brits in Europe?

    I dont know it, but I would imagine it would be the same as for current immigrants in Britain.
    So they expect brits not working to be returning?
    Being deliberately misleading again Tim. The Norway measure is either employed or able to prove an income independent of the hist state. Certainly the Spanish are not going to argue with all the pension money being transferred from UK pension firms to shops and businesses in Spain via retirees.
    Precisely

    If the immigrants are realtively wealthy and spending their money in their new country then thats no problem.

    That isnt the case with uncontrolled mass immigration though


    Its why immigration of wealthy foreigners into West London isnt moaned about like the unskilled immigrants into Boston

    As reflected in elections
    The question is are the unskilled immigrants into Boston taking jobs that the unskilled locals don't want to do?

    Yes its lazy workshy locals that is the issue, make them work rather than giving them money to lie on their beds.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @Richard_Tyndall
    "We insult conservatives because it appears to be the only language you understand."

    You need to understand that such statements will lose you potential converts - I expected better from you. There is no need to emulate the sneerers and smearers of this site - just present strong. cogent and logical points.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @Plato

    Gove's vital reforms will certainly require better teaching from some and improved training for teachers, which means that some precious educational theories will have to be discarded and so he upsets the NUT and education specialists.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    tim said:

    @Charles

    You can't even name one agency that closed can you.
    You may as well,claim "lots of B&Bs closed due to the court ruling on gay couples"

    You're starting to get irritating, Tim.

    You're on the internet, why don't you try and find out yourself?

    There is only one remaining Catholic adoption agency in England and that's Catholic Care up in the RC Diocese of Leeds.

    Now, this is of more general interest.

    1. This bizarre obsession with gay marriage has completely ruined any chance of Cameron's Big Society working. You know, that thing that was supposed to replace the State that he is cutting back. Great vote-winner there.

    2. As the Catholic adoption agencies prove, the religious will close down organisations rather than be complicit in going against their faith. If, as Mike surmises, a lot have gone to UKIP, then they will not be coming back to Cameron's Tories under any circumstances. Worse, this refusal to co-operate in their own marginalisation could spread to non-religious UKIPpers and they will try and ensure Cameron's defeat to enable a political realignment to take place, as per article on PB yesterday.

    http://www.caritascare.org.uk/about/history/

    Took ten seconds to find that one, yet there's only one left is there?


    It talks about the Catholic church in the past tense though - "rooted in", "changing role", etc.

    Are you 100% sure it hasn't disaffiliated?
    http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/europe/caritas_in_england_and_wales.html

    So you can't tell us which ones closed and Ninoinoz falls at the first.
    Not looking good for you theory Charles.

    OK, it seems we're making progress, Tim.

    We've got you to use Google.

    Now, we have to get you to actually read the webpages you link to.

    http://www.csan.org.uk/membersectors/children-and-families/

    "CCS Adoption (Clifton Children’s Society) is a supportive and independent adoption agency based in Bristol. We cover the areas of Bristol, South Gloucestershire, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire."

    Now, notice the use of the word independent in the quotation and the absence of the word Catholic in its title.

    It has disaffiliated from the Catholic Church, though it still receives funding.

    You've got your one.

    Now, contrast with:

    "Catholic Care is a charitable organisation working on behalf of the diocese of Leeds. Over a hundred years of pioneering social work has developed Catholic Care as one of the leading charities in the North of England, caring for children, older people, disabled and disadvantaged people of all ages. Our work currently ranges from a well respected adoption and family finding service to supported living for people with learning disability, care homes, volunteer work and community projects."

    Notice, Catholic in the title and explicit association with the diocese it works in.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    Financier said:

    @Richard_Tyndall
    "We insult conservatives because it appears to be the only language you understand."

    You need to understand that such statements will lose you potential converts - I expected better from you. There is no need to emulate the sneerers and smearers of this site - just present strong. cogent and logical points.

    Don't try and qute just part of what I said. My complete comment was:

    "We insult conservatives because it appears to be the only language you understand. Certainly it is the only language you use when discussing UKIP so we naturally assumed that is how you like to be spoken to all the time. If it isn't then perhaps you should start by leading by example."
This discussion has been closed.