Mr. Me, life isn't fair, but at the same time the Lib Dems have been keen to portray themselves as stopping the Tories killing quite so many babies, rather than talk about Lib Dem achievements, so perhaps it isn't surprising.
The Lib Dems have invested years convincing the voters that coalitions are great for the UK and lead to great Govt. Then they get into Govt and spend their time trashing the image of coalition Govt and then wonder why their ratings go through the floor.
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
It's almost like some Kippers are intent on proving David Cameron right.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you denying that there was an agreement between Lib, Lab and Con to smear UKIP as racist?
I doubt there was an official agreement. Labour would have done it through instinct. The Lib Dems would have started wanting to differentiate themselves as "in" versus "out", but then jumped on the bandwagon. The Conservatives detest UKIP as they see them as splitters, and not a few enjoy throwing the same smears at them that they themselves used to suffer in the late 90s/early 00s.
It's possible that Cameron/Clegg had a joint discussion about how each of their respective parties would tackle UKIP of course, even probably.
But, given how poor the main parties are at coordinating with one another when they do agree on something (e.g. Better Together) I doubt there was an official agreement to smear them as racist: correlation does not imply causation.
Plus ca change. I was the first Conservative to post on this site, in 2004. In 2005, the Conservatives (like UKIP today) were accused of running a "racist" campaign over immigration, and gypsies. I remember roger, in particular, sounded off furiously about Michael Howard's ground-breaking suggestion that Travellers should should be made to obey the law like everyone else. I defended the Conservatives then, and would do now.
I see no discernible difference between UKIP's views on immigration today, and the Conservatives' views on immigration in 2005. Perhaps the Conservatives have now repudiated the views on immigration which hey held in 2005, but if so, they can't be surprised that they've lost votes to UKIP.
All Farage needed to say last Friday was what he has said today. Clearly he understands he crossed the line. The fact is that the vast majority of Romanian men in this country are not criminals and there is no need to feel concerned or anxious if a group of them move in next door to you. It is good that Farage has recognised that. Though I am not sure that being a bit tired is a good enough reason for having said what he said in the first place.
What Farage needs to worry about is not the oft-mentioned metropolitan left, who'd never vote for him anyway. It's the shire Tories who are heavily flirting with UKIP at the moment, but might recoil from the full Romanian kiss on the back of this.
I heard the same interview. It was quite clear to me that James O'Brien detests UKIP, holds their voters (a big chunk of his own listeners) in contempt and was out to nail Farage and 'expose' him. But that does not excuse Farage's performance.
His responses made me wince a little. He must learn to be balanced and reasonable on these points - as I know he his - otherwise people will go, "Ugh, well I agree with a lot of what he says. But I don't want to be associated with that."
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
It's not out of the blue. The last three Scotland-only EU Parliament polls have put UKIP @ 10%. They just need to out-perform that by 1-3%, depending on the SNP result.
Mr. Eagles, would any decline in optimism also lag?
I'm wondering what would happen if we had a rate rise in, say, March next year.
Yes, economic optimism started falling in early 2012, around the time of Omnishambles budget, which then saw a period with huge Labour share of the vote and leads.
Labour may be left running a campaign that just doesn't chime by this time next year. No-one suggests 'the cost of living' is no longer an issue. But to run with that strapline on the back of a mini-boom? As the centrepiece of your strategy to regain power? I just can't see it moving enough voters in the key marginals. They'll be up against a government that has stuck to its guns and consistently called the big macroeconomic decisions right.
Then again, it might now be too late for Labour to change it.
There's a couple of things that may reassure Labour.
1) Some of Labour's economic policies are very popular with the electorate
2) When it comes to believing which parties is the best for the voter and their families, Lab is head of the Tories.
Very worrying thing happened whilst out canvassing yesterday. I spoke to a gentleman who was a Muslim and from a local Mosque just outside the ward.I asked if i could rely on his support on Thursday and he told me there was a meeting at the Mosque this Tuesday to decide which way the whole congregation were to going to vote and they would be influenced by the leader of that Mosque. The leader of that Mosque is the ex Libdem Mayor of Sutton and served on the council for 20 years. I asked him why he couldnt make up his own mind and he told me that was not the way of Allah.. I was left feeling slightly bemused....
It's something that is fairly common with the first generation (oo-er, lots of strange politicians, some of them hostile, what should I do? Advice please) and then ebbs away. The Tories played the "community leader" card in the Ealing election a few years ago and lost decisively, and the other parties have intermittently come unstuck with it at Council level too. I doubt if most young Muslims would agree that Allah requires them to vote as the old chap at the mosque advises, though they'd probably give him a polite hearing.
It's not IMO unnatural. If you went to live in Bulgaria and there was a local or European election, you'd probably take advice from long-term British residents the first time round, especially if the British community felt under pressure from some politicians, but you'd make up your own mind after a few years.
On the whole, Labour has benefited most from "community voting" over the years, so the trend away from it forces us to make more of an effort, which is good all round.
A geometers line. The recovery is on track, we are seeing house prices in "average" terms coming back to the levels seen before the "crash". Same with bundled debts, our housing shortage is as bad as it ever was, our economy is as badly unbalanced, and there is an availability of "cheap money" to be invested. Everything is starting to look like it was before the car hit the wall, except for greater inequality in wealth, and cuts in services, meaning that for the vast majority of this country, the pips have been well and truly squeezed. Am I being too pessimistic in wondering if this is a "good" thing?
At Sutton Council the officers are running around like headless chickens today because there is serious talk of a hung council after Thursday with UKIP and Labour picking up seats off the LDs...Could be a worse night for the Orange people than initially thought...
I can recall you forecasting Conservative gains in the 2010 local elections in Sutton as well as in the parliamentary seats because the LD council was very unpopular . Will your forecast this year be any more accurate ?
Last time the results were skewed by the GE and 2 Tory PPCs who were frankly inept.
This time there are not the same dynamics in place and also not the same number of LD activists about. I dont think the council will change from where it is now but it is a possibility. Even you must concede that the LDs in Sutton hit a high water mark in 2010 the LDs on the ground tell me that. My prediction for what its worth is LDs 30 Tory 19 others 5..what do you think?
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
Next, you'll be telling us that the LibLabCon's forced Farage to make his Romanian comments on LBC.
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
It's not out of the blue. The last three Scotland-only EU Parliament polls have put UKIP @ 10%. They just need to out-perform that by 1-3%, depending on the SNP result.
Dave , better described as a miracle , just accept your £50 is down the stank.
With the polls having moved quite markedly over the last few weeks, is there any chance please of you writing a piece on of the best value, say the top 20 betting opportunities, for the Tories retaining seats which for so long have seen seen as being certain Labour wins and therefore available at decent odds? Here and now there is surely some value available in this territory.
Very worrying thing happened whilst out canvassing yesterday. I spoke to a gentleman who was a Muslim and from a local Mosque just outside the ward.I asked if i could rely on his support on Thursday and he told me there was a meeting at the Mosque this Tuesday to decide which way the whole congregation were to going to vote and they would be influenced by the leader of that Mosque. The leader of that Mosque is the ex Libdem Mayor of Sutton and served on the council for 20 years. I asked him why he couldnt make up his own mind and he told me that was not the way of Allah.. I was left feeling slightly bemused....
It's something that is fairly common with the first generation (oo-er, lots of strange politicians, some of them hostile, what should I do? Advice please) and then ebbs away. The Tories played the "community leader" card in the Ealing election a few years ago and lost decisively, and the other parties have intermittently come unstuck with it at Council level too. I doubt if most young Muslims would agree that Allah requires them to vote as the old chap at the mosque advises, though they'd probably give him a polite hearing.
It's not IMO unnatural. If you went to live in Bulgaria and there was a local or European election, you'd probably take advice from long-term British residents the first time round, especially if the British community felt under pressure from some politicians, but you'd make up your own mind after a few years.
On the whole, Labour has benefited most from "community voting" over the years, so the trend away from it forces us to make more of an effort, which is good all round.
The only problem with your viewpoint Nick is the guy on the doorstep was about 70..
Nick P - regarding the Ealing Southall by-election, the Tories completely mucked up by fielding a young candidate, rather than someone who had standing in the community. There is definitely still considerable 'community voting' in that constituency, with individual Sikh temples being either Labour or Conservative, based on which councillors/candidates happen to worship there - also note the extremely high share of the vote from Ealing Southall for David Miliband in the leadership election, which I think could only be explained by a 'block vote' from sections of the local party membership.
Public sector workers: Labour lead by 47% to 24% Private sector workers: Labour lead by 35% to 33% All other voters*: Conservatives lead by 41% to 28%
* Including unemployed, long-term sick, retired, those caring for children or other relatives, students, etc, but probably mostly the retired, given differential turnout.
It's the age-old problem for Labour. They have to convince the under-50s that they aren't too busy to bother to vote.
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
It's almost like some Kippers are intent on proving David Cameron right.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you denying that there was an agreement between Lib, Lab and Con to smear UKIP as racist?
Well yes, it's not like David Cameron said years ago when UKIP were polling less than 2% were full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
The alliance was on the front page of the Guardian. There was a guest on Newsnight who was head of this cross-party anti-UKIP campaign. Do you need me to dig it out?
You're missing the point, this has nothing to do with this alliance, such as it is.
In 2006, David Cameron made a widely commented upon observation about UKIP.
Every time a Kipper says something 'controversial' it is a boost for Dave, and some voters who were thinking of voting UKIP maybe put off, and that Dave was right.
The fact the a Lab led alliance is doing this is a bonus.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
Mr. Eagles, would any decline in optimism also lag?
I'm wondering what would happen if we had a rate rise in, say, March next year.
Yes, economic optimism started falling in early 2012, around the time of Omnishambles budget, which then saw a period with huge Labour share of the vote and leads.
Labour may be left running a campaign that just doesn't chime by this time next year. No-one suggests 'the cost of living' is no longer an issue. But to run with that strapline on the back of a mini-boom? As the centrepiece of your strategy to regain power? I just can't see it moving enough voters in the key marginals. They'll be up against a government that has stuck to its guns and consistently called the big macroeconomic decisions right.
Then again, it might now be too late for Labour to change it.
There's a couple of things that may reassure Labour.
1) Some of Labour's economic policies are very popular with the electorate
2) When it comes to believing which parties is the best for the voter and their families, Lab is head of the Tories.
Yes, that's true. However, I think some other poster (your good self?) once pointed out:
(1) is not necessarily an advantage. Voters can perversely recoil from political parties that appear to just be adopting their popular prejudices. For as long as I can remember, voters have overwhelming supported rail renationalisation. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be terrified at the prospect of Labour actually doing it. If Labour's manifesto is just a good-bag of 'we'll give you what you want' sweeties, voters will smell a rat, spot the inconsistencies and lack of credibility, and won't vote for them.
(2) That's mainly a reflection of the 'understands people like you' trait. Voters have (once again, for as long as I can remember) perceived Labour as the party of the common man, and Tories as the party of the privileged elite.
Neither of those things are election winners. It's heart over head stuff - and head will win. But I'm happy for Labour to think they are, if it prolongs their delusion.
The normal mischaracterisation of UKIP words to smear them. He didn't say Romanians are criminal scum. He said there was a high level of criminality in Romania. IF you want a fact, here's one:
My point is that if he's got evidence Romanians are criminal scum he should produce it and say so.
The problem is that, as has been pointed out already, the average UKIP MEP is more likely to be imprisoned than the average Romanian immigrant. 2 of UKIP's 13 MEPs have been jailed and 2 more had to pay back £40 grand between them. Next to this record of dedicated larceny, Romanian efforts pale, frankly.
Of course as I keep pointing out on here the main difference between the UKIP and the Tories is that when UKIP find unsavoury characters they drop them. The Tories do not and are happy to continue with homophobes and racists as councillors long after they have been identified as such.
Look to clean up your own party before you start attacking others.
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton.
My $0.02? They haven't got it in them, they are a one-trick pony in personnel and policies and they will fold (has long been my view) to sub-5% in GE2015. But I would be interested to be proved wrong.
Yep. In 2010 they held on to 18% of their 2009 euros vote share. Assuming they repeat that level of vote retention, they'll achieve about 5% in 2015.
One factor may allow them to do slightly better. 2010 was a historic emergency in which every voter's duty was to remove Labour, and in particular Gordon Brown, from office by every possible means. Many, wrongly in my view, think the emergency is now past, and that by 2015 it will again be safe to cast votes for joke parties. This may enable UKIP to retain more than 18% of whatever they poll this week - but not much more.
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
It's not out of the blue. The last three Scotland-only EU Parliament polls have put UKIP @ 10%. They just need to out-perform that by 1-3%, depending on the SNP result.
Dave , better described as a miracle , just accept your £50 is down the stank.
Cheer up Malc. The sun's out, and UKIP are doing well. :-)
Mr. Eagles, would any decline in optimism also lag?
I'm wondering what would happen if we had a rate rise in, say, March next year.
Yes, economic optimism started falling in early 2012, around the time of Omnishambles budget, which then saw a period with huge Labour share of the vote and leads.
Labour may be left running a campaign that just doesn't chime by this time next year. No-one suggests 'the cost of living' is no longer an issue. But to run with that strapline on the back of a mini-boom? As the centrepiece of your strategy to regain power? I just can't see it moving enough voters in the key marginals. They'll be up against a government that has stuck to its guns and consistently called the big macroeconomic decisions right.
Then again, it might now be too late for Labour to change it.
There's a couple of things that may reassure Labour.
1) Some of Labour's economic policies are very popular with the electorate
2) When it comes to believing which parties is the best for the voter and their families, Lab is head of the Tories.
Yes, that's true. However, I think some other poster (your good self?) once pointed out:
(1) is not necessarily an advantage. Voters can perversely recoil from political parties that appear to just be adopting their popular prejudices. For as long as I can remember, voters have overwhelming supported rail renationalisation. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be terrified at the prospect of Labour actually doing it. If Labour's manifesto is just a good-bag of 'we'll give you what you want' sweeties, voters will smell a rat, spot the inconsistencies and lack of credibility, and won't vote for them.
(2) That's mainly a reflection of the 'understands people like you' trait. Voters have (once again, for as long as I can remember) perceived Labour as the party of the common man, and Tories as the party of the privileged elite.
Neither of those things are election winners. It's heart over head stuff - and head will win. But I'm happy for Labour to think they are, if it prolongs their delusion.
Indeed, I think Labour's problem will be that the Tories have managed to make the narrative that the two Eds were in charge of the car, when the economy crashed.
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
It's not out of the blue. The last three Scotland-only EU Parliament polls have put UKIP @ 10%. They just need to out-perform that by 1-3%, depending on the SNP result.
Dave , better described as a miracle , just accept your £50 is down the stank.
The normal mischaracterisation of UKIP words to smear them. He didn't say Romanians are criminal scum. He said there was a high level of criminality in Romania. IF you want a fact, here's one:
My point is that if he's got evidence Romanians are criminal scum he should produce it and say so.
The problem is that, as has been pointed out already, the average UKIP MEP is more likely to be imprisoned than the average Romanian immigrant. 2 of UKIP's 13 MEPs have been jailed and 2 more had to pay back £40 grand between them. Next to this record of dedicated larceny, Romanian efforts pale, frankly.
Of course as I keep pointing out on here the main difference between the UKIP and the Tories is that when UKIP find unsavoury characters they drop them. The Tories do not and are happy to continue with homophobes and racists as councillors long after they have been identified as such.
Look to clean up your own party before you start attacking others.
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton. blockquote>
Quite a few Conservative MPs, Peers, and MEPs have had to pay back some hefty sums over the past few years. Andrew Mackay and his wife, Maria Miller, Michael Gove, Den Dover, Bashir Khanbai, Lord Taylor, spring to mind.
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
It's almost like some Kippers are intent on proving David Cameron right.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you denying that there was an agreement between Lib, Lab and Con to smear UKIP as racist?
Well yes, it's not like David Cameron said years ago when UKIP were polling less than 2% were full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
The alliance was on the front page of the Guardian. There was a guest on Newsnight who was head of this cross-party anti-UKIP campaign. Do you need me to dig it out?
You're missing the point, this has nothing to do with this alliance, such as it is.
In 2006, David Cameron made a widely commented upon observation about UKIP.
Every time a Kipper says something 'controversial' it is a boost for Dave, and some voters who were thinking of voting UKIP maybe put off, and that Dave was right.
The fact the a Lab led alliance is doing this is a bonus.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where UKIP have been falling in the polls over the last few years?
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
Cameron's judgement is in my view of a very high standard. He is particularly adept at getting in front of the kind of issues where in 20 years' time people will wonder how anyone ever thought differently.
He was right about gay marriage, he was right about Osborne as chancellor, he was right to offer the mueslis a full coalition, and he was right about UKIP. I'm not sure he's right about keeping Scotland in the union, but his judgement is otherwise so sound that you suspect he is.
I think he has concluded that in 20-odd years' time, it will for any public figure be somewhere between excruciatingly embarrassing and downright damaging ever to have said something like "actually UKIP have a point". UKIP today are in some ways like PIE in the 1970s, in the sense that anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association.
Meanwhile they're doing a fine job of providing nutters with somewhere else to go. They're the egg white fining the wine.
Would someone mind telling me what race the Romanians are? I'm getting a little confused at this new designation. Are Bulgarians the same race or a different one? How long will it be before Sadiq Khan is recommended that they're recruited to the police at higher rates than whites?
One of the West Antarctic glaciers is losing height at a rate of about one inch per day.
It's lies. Lies by corrupt scientists in cahoots with corrupt journals using dodgy analysis in search of next year's grant money (which is delivered in hockey-stick-shaped bags). LIES, I TELL YOU!!
Also, most climate scientists are lizard sypathisers who will not rest until our society in under the dominion of the all powerful Grand High Newt.
One of the West Antarctic glaciers is losing height at a rate of about one inch per day.
If that is the case, then what I feel is 1) It's too late to do much to stop global warming 2) Questionable whether anything could have been done in the first place.
Might as well just enjoy the ride. It could be bumpy though.
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
It's almost like some Kippers are intent on proving David Cameron right.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you denying that there was an agreement between Lib, Lab and Con to smear UKIP as racist?
Well yes, it's not like David Cameron said years ago when UKIP were polling less than 2% were full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
The alliance was on the front page of the Guardian. There was a guest on Newsnight who was head of this cross-party anti-UKIP campaign. Do you need me to dig it out?
You're missing the point, this has nothing to do with this alliance, such as it is.
In 2006, David Cameron made a widely commented upon observation about UKIP.
Every time a Kipper says something 'controversial' it is a boost for Dave, and some voters who were thinking of voting UKIP maybe put off, and that Dave was right.
The fact the a Lab led alliance is doing this is a bonus.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where UKIP have been falling in the polls over the last few years?
No, I can read the polls, I'm talking about perceptions, and I've noted before, sometimes perceptions matter more than facts in the world of politics.
To give you an example, my Mother to my immense surprise mentioned over the weekend she may vote UKIP on Thursday, but she said, they seem a bit anti Muslim don't they and isn't sure, she remembers Cameron's comment.
The normal mischaracterisation of UKIP words to smear them. He didn't say Romanians are criminal scum. He said there was a high level of criminality in Romania. IF you want a fact, here's one:
My point is that if he's got evidence Romanians are criminal scum he should produce it and say so.
The problem is that, as has been pointed out already, the average UKIP MEP is more likely to be imprisoned than the average Romanian immigrant. 2 of UKIP's 13 MEPs have been jailed and 2 more had to pay back £40 grand between them. Next to this record of dedicated larceny, Romanian efforts pale, frankly.
Of course as I keep pointing out on here the main difference between the UKIP and the Tories is that when UKIP find unsavoury characters they drop them. The Tories do not and are happy to continue with homophobes and racists as councillors long after they have been identified as such.
Look to clean up your own party before you start attacking others.
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton. blockquote>
Quite a few Conservative MPs, Peers, and MEPs have had to pay back some hefty sums over the past few years. Andrew Mackay and his wife, Maria Miller, Michael Gove, Den Dover, Bashir Khanbai, Lord Taylor, spring to mind.
When 31% of any other party in any house goes to jail or has to pay back a five figure sum, I'll concede that they are perhaps just as bad as UKIP, Sean. At the moment, however, UKIP are unquestionably the corruptest troughingest party of all, and that's even without considering Neil Hamilton's record.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
UKIP today are in some ways like PIE in the 1970s, in the sense that anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association. .
I don't like UKIP, but no they aren't. Don't be an arse.
No, I can read the polls, I'm talking about perceptions, and I've noted before, sometimes perceptions matter more than facts in the world of politics.
To give you an example, my Mother to my immense surprise mentioned over the weekend she may vote UKIP on Thursday, but she said, they seem a bit anti Muslim don't they and isn't sure, she remembers Cameron's comment.
All the vibrations are right. A person who is helping him who is not a longtime Romneyite told me, yesterday: “I joined because I was anti Obama—I’m a patriot, I’ll join up But now I am pro-Romney.” Why? “I’ve spent time with him and I care about him and admire him. He’s a genuinely good man.” Looking at the crowds on TV, hearing them chant “Three more days” and “Two more days”—it feels like a lot of Republicans have gone from anti-Obama to pro-Romney.
Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us.
Maybe that’s what the coming Romney moment is about: independents, conservatives, Republicans, even some Democrats, thinking: We can turn it around, we can work together, we can right this thing, and he can help.
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
It's not out of the blue. The last three Scotland-only EU Parliament polls have put UKIP @ 10%. They just need to out-perform that by 1-3%, depending on the SNP result.
Dave , better described as a miracle , just accept your £50 is down the stank.
Eh?? Given the polling details which Old Labour posted, the SNP (19% and 29% last two actual elections) seem to be doing quite well in the Euros compared to Labour (26 and 21%), Tories (bumping along the bottom well below their previous 18 and 17% and below Scottish Pmt levels) and LDs. The implication is that UKIP is taking its support from disaffected Tories and Labour voters, assuming that the greener LDs have simply moved to the Green Party proper.
The normal mischaracterisation of UKIP words to smear them. He didn't say Romanians are criminal scum. He said there was a high level of criminality in Romania. IF you want a fact, here's one:
My point is that if he's got evidence Romanians are criminal scum he should produce it and say so.
The problem is that, as has been pointed out already, the average UKIP MEP is more likely to be imprisoned than the average Romanian immigrant. 2 of UKIP's 13 MEPs have been jailed and 2 more had to pay back £40 grand between them. Next to this record of dedicated larceny, Romanian efforts pale, frankly.
Of course as I keep pointing out on here the main difference between the UKIP and the Tories is that when UKIP find unsavoury characters they drop them. The Tories do not and are happy to continue with homophobes and racists as councillors long after they have been identified as such.
Look to clean up your own party before you start attacking others.
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton. blockquote>
Quite a few Conservative MPs, Peers, and MEPs have had to pay back some hefty sums over the past few years. Andrew Mackay and his wife, Maria Miller, Michael Gove, Den Dover, Bashir Khanbai, Lord Taylor, spring to mind.
When 31% of any other party in any house goes to jail or has to pay back a five figure sum, I'll concede that they are perhaps just as bad as UKIP, Sean. At the moment, however, UKIP are unquestionably the corruptest troughingest party of all, and that's even without considering Neil Hamilton's record.
Your party is led by a man who had to repay a five-figure sum in 2009.
No, I can read the polls, I'm talking about perceptions, and I've noted before, sometimes perceptions matter more than facts in the world of politics.
To give you an example, my Mother to my immense surprise mentioned over the weekend she may vote UKIP on Thursday, but she said, they seem a bit anti Muslim don't they and isn't sure, she remembers Cameron's comment.
All the vibrations are right. A person who is helping him who is not a longtime Romneyite told me, yesterday: “I joined because I was anti Obama—I’m a patriot, I’ll join up But now I am pro-Romney.” Why? “I’ve spent time with him and I care about him and admire him. He’s a genuinely good man.” Looking at the crowds on TV, hearing them chant “Three more days” and “Two more days”—it feels like a lot of Republicans have gone from anti-Obama to pro-Romney.
Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us.
Maybe that’s what the coming Romney moment is about: independents, conservatives, Republicans, even some Democrats, thinking: We can turn it around, we can work together, we can right this thing, and he can help.
Peggy Noonan, November 5th 2012.
And your point is?
My Mum is still planning to vote Lib Dem in 2015.
As I've noted before, she's not happy with the Roma influx into Sheffield.
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
It's almost like some Kippers are intent on proving David Cameron right.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you denying that there was an agreement between Lib, Lab and Con to smear UKIP as racist?
Well yes, it's not like David Cameron said years ago when UKIP were polling less than 2% were full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
The alliance was on the front page of the Guardian. There was a guest on Newsnight who was head of this cross-party anti-UKIP campaign. Do you need me to dig it out?
You're missing the point, this has nothing to do with this alliance, such as it is.
In 2006, David Cameron made a widely commented upon observation about UKIP.
Every time a Kipper says something 'controversial' it is a boost for Dave, and some voters who were thinking of voting UKIP maybe put off, and that Dave was right.
The fact the a Lab led alliance is doing this is a bonus.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where UKIP have been falling in the polls over the last few years?
No, I can read the polls, I'm talking about perceptions, and I've noted before, sometimes perceptions matter more than facts in the world of politics.
To give you an example, my Mother to my immense surprise mentioned over the weekend she may vote UKIP on Thursday, but she said, they seem a bit anti Muslim don't they and isn't sure, she remembers Cameron's comment.
The _perception_ of MPs and journalists is not that they're truth-telling good guys. Those are the people calling UKIP names.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
Cameron's judgement is in my view of a very high standard. He is particularly adept at getting in front of the kind of issues where in 20 years' time people will wonder how anyone ever thought differently.
He was right about gay marriage, he was right about Osborne as chancellor, he was right to offer the mueslis a full coalition, and he was right about UKIP. I'm not sure he's right about keeping Scotland in the union, but his judgement is otherwise so sound that you suspect he is.
I think he has concluded that in 20-odd years' time, it will for any public figure be somewhere between excruciatingly embarrassing and downright damaging ever to have said something like "actually UKIP have a point". UKIP today are in some ways like PIE in the 1970s, in the sense that anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association.
Meanwhile they're doing a fine job of providing nutters with somewhere else to go. They're the egg white fining the wine.
Cameron is the man who's halved his party's membership (and falling).
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton.
I don't remember Hamilton being accused of making homophobic or racist statements. Of course if you are trying to widen the discussion to bring in dodgy money matters then we can have a whole list of Tories who have been guilty of fraud, misuse of expenses and all manner of financial irregularities.
And of course Hamilton was a Tory when he committed his crimes.
Would someone mind telling me what race the Romanians are? I'm getting a little confused at this new designation. Are Bulgarians the same race or a different one? How long will it be before Sadiq Khan is recommended that they're recruited to the police at higher rates than whites?
I'm fairly clear that the Slavs have been regarded as a different race to the Germans. This particular racial distinction was rather important in the early 1940s. The Romanians don't identify as Slavic but they aren't Germanic either. Fortunately, we have Mr Farage to tell us the difference.
The point is, that perceptions of those around us do not matter more than methodologically sound polls with large sample sizes. Those that think they are end up getting embarrassed.
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
It's not out of the blue. The last three Scotland-only EU Parliament polls have put UKIP @ 10%. They just need to out-perform that by 1-3%, depending on the SNP result.
Dave , better described as a miracle , just accept your £50 is down the stank.
Cheer up Malc. The sun's out, and UKIP are doing well. :-)
Would someone mind telling me what race the Romanians are? I'm getting a little confused at this new designation. Are Bulgarians the same race or a different one? How long will it be before Sadiq Khan is recommended that they're recruited to the police at higher rates than whites?
I'm fairly clear that the Slavs have been regarded as a different race to the Germans. This particular racial distinction was rather important in the early 1940s. The Romanians don't identify as Slavic but they aren't Germanic either. Fortunately, we have Mr Farage to tell us the difference.
So Farage's comments on Romanians are supposed to be some Nazi-style antipathy to Slavs? Is that the racism that people are alleging? Yet the same critics think Farage is an adoring fan of noted Slav Vladimir Putin.
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
It's not out of the blue. The last three Scotland-only EU Parliament polls have put UKIP @ 10%. They just need to out-perform that by 1-3%, depending on the SNP result.
Dave , better described as a miracle , just accept your £50 is down the stank.
Eh?? Given the polling details which Old Labour posted, the SNP (19% and 29% last two actual elections) seem to be doing quite well in the Euros compared to Labour (26 and 21%), Tories (bumping along the bottom well below their previous 18 and 17% and below Scottish Pmt levels) and LDs. The implication is that UKIP is taking its support from disaffected Tories and Labour voters, assuming that the greener LDs have simply moved to the Green Party proper.
You're confusing the SNP with YES. Salmond's hubristic claim that YES was gaining ground was shattered by recent polling.
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
It's not out of the blue. The last three Scotland-only EU Parliament polls have put UKIP @ 10%. They just need to out-perform that by 1-3%, depending on the SNP result.
Dave , better described as a miracle , just accept your £50 is down the stank.
Eh?? Given the polling details which Old Labour posted, the SNP (19% and 29% last two actual elections) seem to be doing quite well in the Euros compared to Labour (26 and 21%), Tories (bumping along the bottom well below their previous 18 and 17% and below Scottish Pmt levels) and LDs. The implication is that UKIP is taking its support from disaffected Tories and Labour voters, assuming that the greener LDs have simply moved to the Green Party proper.
You're confusing the SNP with YES. Salmond's hubristic claim that YES was gaining ground was shattered by recent polling.
But we were talking about the Euro elections in the first place - and you mentioned UKIP who are not, so far as I am aware, part of the Better Together campaign but are very much involved in the Euro elections.
Would someone mind telling me what race the Romanians are? I'm getting a little confused at this new designation. Are Bulgarians the same race or a different one? How long will it be before Sadiq Khan is recommended that they're recruited to the police at higher rates than whites?
I'm fairly clear that the Slavs have been regarded as a different race to the Germans. This particular racial distinction was rather important in the early 1940s. The Romanians don't identify as Slavic but they aren't Germanic either. Fortunately, we have Mr Farage to tell us the difference.
So Farage's comments on Romanians are supposed to be some Nazi-style antipathy to Slavs? Is that the racism that people are alleging?
I don't regard Nigel Farage as a fascist. Boorish, xenophobic, narrow-minded and stupid: yes. But not fascist.
But your attempt to pretend that antipathy against Romanians can't be racism is absurd.
I reckon Ukip's rise is less to do with what they do and say, and more to do with what others do and say. They surge on the back of some posh, arrogant politician telling the voters what they should think.
It's a bit like the SNP trying to get Cameron involved in the Independence debate - he's too wise to do so.
So every time someone from the media/establishment mocks the voters, a few more defect. Best plan would be to ignore them, but that's impossible for metropolitan know-it-alls.
Post May 22nd, when the insults die away, so might Ukip. But will the establishment heed the lesson?
Fortunately, we have Mr Farage to tell us the difference.
There is nobody more concerned with the niceties of race than the scions of the left. By contrast, I bet Farage probably doesn't even remotely know what race the romanians are. If indeed they are a 'race'.
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
It's almost like some Kippers are intent on proving David Cameron right.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you denying that there was an agreement between Lib, Lab and Con to smear UKIP as racist?
Well yes, it's not like David Cameron said years ago when UKIP were polling less than 2% were full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
The alliance was on the front page of the Guardian. There was a guest on Newsnight who was head of this cross-party anti-UKIP campaign. Do you need me to dig it out?
Snip
Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where UKIP have been falling in the polls over the last few years?
No, I can read the polls, I'm talking about perceptions, and I've noted before, sometimes perceptions matter more than facts in the world of politics.
To give you an example, my Mother to my immense surprise mentioned over the weekend she may vote UKIP on Thursday, but she said, they seem a bit anti Muslim don't they and isn't sure, she remembers Cameron's comment.
The _perception_ of MPs and journalists is not that they're truth-telling good guys. Those are the people calling UKIP names.
It isn't the MPs and journalists that are making the unfortunate and Islamaphobic comments.
People can contrast that with the fact that meanwhile in the Tory Party, the son of a Pakistani immigrant became a cabinet minister quite recently.
I've been fiddling about with a D'Hondt calculator. It seems that in order for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP, the following criteria must be met:
A) BOTH (note: BOTH) the SNP and SLAB must poll UNDER 30%, and UKIP must poll at least 10%. Although the 2nd bit is perfectly feasible, the first bit is profoundly unlikely.
or
SLAB must lose an MEP.
or
C) UKIP must get more votes than SCON. Again, profoundly unlikely.
So, in summary, the most likely way for UKIP to get a Scottish MEP is for SLAB to poll under circa 18%. They got 21% last time round in 2009.
Surely all UKIP need to do is get > third of the SNP score, 11-13%.
UKIP have never had a result anything near 11% before in Scotland. It requires a huge leap of the imagination to envisage that suddenly happening out of the blue. Remember, their GOTV operation is pretty much non-existent, and the SCON vote has been at "core" levels for decades now, so nothing there to squeeze.
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
It's not out of the blue. The last three Scotland-only EU Parliament polls have put UKIP @ 10%. They just need to out-perform that by 1-3%, depending on the SNP result.
Dave , better described as a miracle , just accept your £50 is down the stank.
Cheer up Malc. The sun's out, and UKIP are doing well. :-)
Dave, It is indeed sunny, means I can cut my grass tonight, looking a bit untidy.
Sunny in berkshire. I had of course assumed that God maintained a perpetual damp winter in Scotland. (We have some refugee scottish vicars in The Summer Country) :-)
All Farage needed to say last Friday was what he has said today. Clearly he understands he crossed the line.
...
But that does not excuse Farage's performance.
His responses made me wince a little. He must learn to be balanced and reasonable on these points - as I know he his - otherwise people will go, "Ugh, well I agree with a lot of what he says. But I don't want to be associated with that."
One of the side-effects of following the current 'smear campaign' against UKIP is that I have been drawn into old archives of record and debate. One such source is a 2010 blog article entitled 'UKIP and the BNP'.
The story is of plot and counter-plot: how Farage managed to remove his predecessor, Michael Holmes, as leader of UKIP and how the two parties ganged up to remove John Tyndall as leader of the BNP in 1997. All this is familiar territory to any student of extremist politics and need not detain us further today.
What I did find of current interest though was the following quotation from an October 1999 Guardian article which reported on the then recent changes in leadership of both UKIP and the BNP:
These shenanigans have been observed with great interest by Nick Griffin and the BNP. Until 1997, under the leadership of Dr Alan Sked, UKIP's membership form included a clause stressing that racists were not allowed to join. Soon after Sked's departure, however, the clause mysteriously disappeared. The new leaders, Michael Holmes and Nigel Farage - who are now both MEPs - also set out to "combine our protest" with other anti-Euro campaigners. In his UKIP election leaflet this year, Holmes paid tribute to "citizens' patriotic protest groups" such as Save Our Sterling - presumably unaware that Save Our Sterling was run by the BNP. [My emphasis; original article http://bit.ly/1o6npLD ].
There may well be more to the Sked-Farage antipathy than misplaced apostrophes and the vengeance of the defeated. If this account is true, it looks as though a pre-meditated decision was made by UKIP's new party leaders in 1999 to court wider electoral support at the risk of the party becoming polluted by racism.
If this account is true, then UKIP and Farage have no one to blame except themselves for the current campaign against them being based on charges of tolerating racism.
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton.
I don't remember Hamilton being accused of making homophobic or racist statements. Of course if you are trying to widen the discussion to bring in dodgy money matters then we can have a whole list of Tories who have been guilty of fraud, misuse of expenses and all manner of financial irregularities.
And of course Hamilton was a Tory when he committed his crimes.
Hamilton was accused of being a racist by Panorama in 1984, and fought and won a very expensive (for the BBC) libel action as a result.
Would someone mind telling me what race the Romanians are? I'm getting a little confused at this new designation. Are Bulgarians the same race or a different one? How long will it be before Sadiq Khan is recommended that they're recruited to the police at higher rates than whites?
I'm fairly clear that the Slavs have been regarded as a different race to the Germans. This particular racial distinction was rather important in the early 1940s. The Romanians don't identify as Slavic but they aren't Germanic either. Fortunately, we have Mr Farage to tell us the difference.
So Farage's comments on Romanians are supposed to be some Nazi-style antipathy to Slavs? Is that the racism that people are alleging?
I don't regard Nigel Farage as a fascist. Boorish, xenophobic, narrow-minded and stupid: yes. But not fascist.
But your attempt to pretend that antipathy against Romanians can't be racism is absurd.
What's absurd is referring to a national identity as a race. Antipathy to Romanians, as with any group, could certainly be prejudiced, but it's clearly not racism. It's just that the anti-UKIP brigade know that "prejudiced" doesn't have the sting that "racism" does, so they'd prefer to use the latter word, even if it doesn't make sense. It's the same reason they lie about how many jobs are dependent on the EU or how many businesses have been started by immigrants. They know the eurosceptics have the better argument - as the public thought clearly after the EU debates - so they resort to slurs instead.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
UKIP today are in some ways like PIE in the 1970s, in the sense that anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association. .
I don't like UKIP, but no they aren't. Don't be an arse.
Another one who didn't read it properly.
A nutty organisation sets out to promote some thoroughly unpleasant views, under the cloak of what it misrepresents as some sort of high-minded crusade by which we'll all benefit. The crusaders are deeply misunderstood, you see, and are nice people really, with whom all would agree if only they weren't so nastily picked on and not properly heard.
Unfortunately some key figures turn out to be criminals and do jail time, after which they are seen for what they actually are. Some people stupid enough to have been taken in by this, without actually agreeing with them, and who thought they did indeed deserve a fair hearing, said as much at the time. Decades later, they are hideously embarrassed, and their judgement and intelligence are thoroughly undermined in consequence.
This is the story of Harriet Harman and PIE. I am suggesting Cameron intuits about UKIP that eventually "...anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association". If you want to go all tinfoil hat I can't help you because that's part of your problem.
Cameron has judged that in the future the only respectable view to hold of UKIP will be that they were fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, and he said so out loud at the time. His judgement on this stuff is pretty sound, I suggest.
Your party is led by a man who had to repay a five-figure sum in 2009.
When you can show me 45 Tory MPs who've been imprisoned and another 45 who've had to repay such sums, I'll agree that this is 31% of the PCP and that they're about as corrupt as UKIP.
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
It's almost like some Kippers are intent on proving David Cameron right.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you denying that there was an agreement between Lib, Lab and Con to smear UKIP as racist?
Well yes, it's not like David Cameron said years ago when UKIP were polling less than 2% were full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
The alliance was on the front page of the Guardian. There was a guest on Newsnight who was head of this cross-party anti-UKIP campaign. Do you need me to dig it out?
Snip
Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where UKIP have been falling in the polls over the last few years?
No, I can read the polls, I'm talking about perceptions, and I've noted before, sometimes perceptions matter more than facts in the world of politics.
To give you an example, my Mother to my immense surprise mentioned over the weekend she may vote UKIP on Thursday, but she said, they seem a bit anti Muslim don't they and isn't sure, she remembers Cameron's comment.
The _perception_ of MPs and journalists is not that they're truth-telling good guys. Those are the people calling UKIP names.
It isn't the MPs and journalists that are making the unfortunate and Islamaphobic comments.
People can contrast that with the fact that meanwhile in the Tory Party, the son of a Pakistani immigrant became a cabinet minister quite recently.
This would be the six people who know who is in the cabinet? Not the sort of numbers to sway the vote.
In Survation's recent poll they included an ethnic designation: white/non-white. As I recall UKIP was ahead of the Conservatives with both groups.
Laughably pathetic. Comparing a party that has the support of 25%-30% of the UK population, on a cause that half the country backs, to a disgusting paedophile group that was only supported by parts of the radical left-wing establishment is clearly monumentally stupid.
I don't regard Nigel Farage as a fascist. Boorish, xenophobic, narrow-minded and stupid: yes. But not fascist.
But your attempt to pretend that antipathy against Romanians can't be racism is absurd.
What's absurd is referring to a national identity as a race. Antipathy to Romanians, as with any group, could certainly be prejudiced, but it's clearly not racism. It's just that the anti-UKIP brigade know that "prejudiced" doesn't have the sting that "racism" does, so they'd prefer to use the latter word, even if it doesn't make sense. It's the same reason they lie about how many jobs are dependent on the EU or how many businesses have been started by immigrants. They know the eurosceptics have the better argument - as the public thought clearly after the EU debates - so they resort to slurs instead.
"In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
My emphasis. Now, stop being so stupid.
UKIP, the party of Humpty Dumpty redefinition of words.
You know you have a PR problem when you have to take out an advert saying you're not racists
Snip
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
It's almost like some Kippers are intent on proving David Cameron right.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you denying that there was an agreement between Lib, Lab and Con to smear UKIP as racist?
Well yes, it's not like David Cameron said years ago when UKIP were polling less than 2% were full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
The alliance was on the front page of the Guardian. There was a guest on Newsnight who was head of this cross-party anti-UKIP campaign. Do you need me to dig it out?
Snip
Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where UKIP have been falling in the polls over the last few years?
No, I can read the polls, I'm talking about perceptions, and I've noted before, sometimes perceptions matter more than facts in the world of politics.
To give you an example, my Mother to my immense surprise mentioned over the weekend she may vote UKIP on Thursday, but she said, they seem a bit anti Muslim don't they and isn't sure, she remembers Cameron's comment.
The _perception_ of MPs and journalists is not that they're truth-telling good guys. Those are the people calling UKIP names.
It isn't the MPs and journalists that are making the unfortunate and Islamaphobic comments.
People can contrast that with the fact that meanwhile in the Tory Party, the son of a Pakistani immigrant became a cabinet minister quite recently.
This would be the six people who know who is in the cabinet? Not the sort of numbers to sway the vote.
In Survation's recent poll they included an ethnic designation: white/non-white. As I recall UKIP was ahead of the Conservatives with both groups.
You know you have a PR problem when you have to take out an advert saying you're not racists
Snip
Indeed. Although it's somewhat inevitable you'll have a PR problem when the three other major parties are all just multiple sides of the same coin and all join forces to smear you.
It's almost like some Kippers are intent on proving David Cameron right.
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you denying that there was an agreement between Lib, Lab and Con to smear UKIP as racist?
Well yes, it's not like David Cameron said years ago when UKIP were polling less than 2% were full of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly"
The alliance was on the front page of the Guardian. There was a guest on Newsnight who was head of this cross-party anti-UKIP campaign. Do you need me to dig it out?
Snip
Are you living in some sort of parallel universe where UKIP have been falling in the polls over the last few years?
No, I can read the polls, I'm talking about perceptions, and I've noted before, sometimes perceptions matter more than facts in the world of politics.
To give you an example, my Mother to my immense surprise mentioned over the weekend she may vote UKIP on Thursday, but she said, they seem a bit anti Muslim don't they and isn't sure, she remembers Cameron's comment.
The _perception_ of MPs and journalists is not that they're truth-telling good guys. Those are the people calling UKIP names.
It isn't the MPs and journalists that are making the unfortunate and Islamaphobic comments.
People can contrast that with the fact that meanwhile in the Tory Party, the son of a Pakistani immigrant became a cabinet minister quite recently.
This would be the six people who know who is in the cabinet? Not the sort of numbers to sway the vote.
In Survation's recent poll they included an ethnic designation: white/non-white. As I recall UKIP was ahead of the Conservatives with both groups.
Would someone mind telling me what race the Romanians are? I'm getting a little confused at this new designation. Are Bulgarians the same race or a different one? How long will it be before Sadiq Khan is recommended that they're recruited to the police at higher rates than whites?
I'm fairly clear that the Slavs have been regarded as a different race to the Germans. This particular racial distinction was rather important in the early 1940s. The Romanians don't identify as Slavic but they aren't Germanic either. Fortunately, we have Mr Farage to tell us the difference.
So Farage's comments on Romanians are supposed to be some Nazi-style antipathy to Slavs? Is that the racism that people are alleging?
I don't regard Nigel Farage as a fascist. Boorish, xenophobic, narrow-minded and stupid: yes. But not fascist.
But your attempt to pretend that antipathy against Romanians can't be racism is absurd.
What's absurd is referring to a national identity as a race. Antipathy to Romanians, as with any group, could certainly be prejudiced, but it's clearly not racism. It's just that the anti-UKIP brigade know that "prejudiced" doesn't have the sting that "racism" does, so they'd prefer to use the latter word, even if it doesn't make sense. It's the same reason they lie about how many jobs are dependent on the EU or how many businesses have been started by immigrants. They know the eurosceptics have the better argument - as the public thought clearly after the EU debates - so they resort to slurs instead.
If one is reduced to arguing whether Nigel Farage is "racist" or "prejudiced" when defending him, then the damage has already been done. It's likely (IMO) to be irreversible.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
UKIP today are in some ways like PIE in the 1970s, in the sense that anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association. .
I don't like UKIP, but no they aren't. Don't be an arse.
Another one who didn't read it properly.
A nutty organisation sets out to promote some thoroughly unpleasant views, under the cloak of what it misrepresents as some sort of high-minded crusade by which we'll all benefit. The crusaders are deeply misunderstood, you see, and are nice people really, with whom all would agree if only they weren't so nastily picked on and not properly heard.
Unfortunately some key figures turn out to be criminals and do jail time, after which they are seen for what they actually are. Some people stupid enough to have been taken in by this, without actually agreeing with them, and who thought they did indeed deserve a fair hearing, said as much at the time. Decades later, they are hideously embarrassed, and their judgement and intelligence are thoroughly undermined in consequence.
This is the story of Harriet Harman and PIE. I am suggesting Cameron intuits about UKIP that eventually "...anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association". If you want to go all tinfoil hat I can't help you because that's part of your problem.
Cameron has judged that in the future the only respectable view to hold of UKIP will be that they were fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, and he said so out loud at the time. His judgement on this stuff is pretty sound, I suggest.
Your party is led by a man who had to repay a five-figure sum in 2009.
When you can show me 45 Tory MPs who've been imprisoned and another 45 who've had to repay such sums, I'll agree that this is 31% of the PCP and that they're about as corrupt as UKIP.
Your're making the basic of error of extrapolating from a very small sample size. If you really want me to list every Conservative MP, MEP, Peer, councillor who's been guilty of financial impropriety in recent years, I'll do so, but it would be a lengthy and tedious business.
And I'm sure his foreign wife will be very upset at his hatred of foreigners.
OGH on May Day, " The Greens are a near-fascist party which uses environmental issues to try to control our lives. If required I would tactically vote Ukip to stop the Greens. "
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton.
I don't remember Hamilton being accused of making homophobic or racist statements. Of course if you are trying to widen the discussion to bring in dodgy money matters then we can have a whole list of Tories who have been guilty of fraud, misuse of expenses and all manner of financial irregularities.
And of course Hamilton was a Tory when he committed his crimes.
Obviously I'm talking about money, Richard. Don't be obtuse. Neil Hamilton was the man alleged to have accepted cash for asking questions in Parliament and who sent Mobil a bill for £10,000 out of the blue after he did something helpful to them. He lost a libel trial about these matters. He is a greedy man of bad character. And he's a honch in UKIP, who think he's fine. Contrary to your assertion that UKIP chucks such people out.
What is it about UKIP that attracts a man like Neil Hamilton, do you suppose?
A more accurate representation of the current state of British politics would be a miniature naked Ed Miliband being chased around the shadow cabinet table by a giant Nigel Farage. Faced with the most overtly racist political campaign in modern British history, the leader of the Labour Party has responded in characteristic fashion: he’s run away.
These euro elections were billed in advance by Labour insiders as a test run for the general election in 12 months time. So it’s proved. Labour’s campaign has staggered from incompetence, to confusion, to outright panic.
And I'm sure his foreign wife will be very upset at his hatred of foreigners.
OGH on May Day, " The Greens are a near-fascist party which uses environmental issues to try to control our lives. If required I would tactically vote Ukip to stop the Greens. "
Antifrank is a Green.
Near fascist? Really? I'd buy "communist" or "authoritarian", but I thought fascism was defined by its nationalism. I see no evidence of that trait in the Greens.
I do, however, agree with OGH that they would pose a genuine danger to our happiness and prosperity if given the reins of power.
Would someone mind telling me what race the Romanians are? I'm getting a little confused at this new designation. Are Bulgarians the same race or a different one? How long will it be before Sadiq Khan is recommended that they're recruited to the police at higher rates than whites?
I'm fairly clear that the Slavs have been regarded as a different race to the Germans. This particular racial distinction was rather important in the early 1940s. The Romanians don't identify as Slavic but they aren't Germanic either. Fortunately, we have Mr Farage to tell us the difference.
So Farage's comments on Romanians are supposed to be some Nazi-style antipathy to Slavs? Is that the racism that people are alleging?
I don't regard Nigel Farage as a fascist. Boorish, xenophobic, narrow-minded and stupid: yes. But not fascist.
But your attempt to pretend that antipathy against Romanians can't be racism is absurd.
What's absurd is referring to a national identity as a race. Antipathy to Romanians, as with any group, could certainly be prejudiced, but it's clearly not racism. It's just that the anti-UKIP brigade know that "prejudiced" doesn't have the sting that "racism" does, so they'd prefer to use the latter word, even if it doesn't make sense. It's the same reason they lie about how many jobs are dependent on the EU or how many businesses have been started by immigrants. They know the eurosceptics have the better argument - as the public thought clearly after the EU debates - so they resort to slurs instead.
If one is reduced to arguing whether Nigel Farage is "racist" or "prejudiced" when defending him, then the damage has already been done. It's likely (IMO) to be irreversible.
I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that "prejudiced" would be at least a coherent argument. It's still untrue. The accusation of "racism" is just absurd.
These shenanigans have been observed with great interest by Nick Griffin and the BNP. Until 1997, under the leadership of Dr Alan Sked, UKIP's membership form included a clause stressing that racists were not allowed to join. Soon after Sked's departure, however, the clause mysteriously disappeared.
This is not true and you should know better* than to quote the partial reporting and smears of the Guardian. The clause referring to a ban on racists joining was not disgarded it was replaced as it was deemed unworkable and replaced with a ban on anyone who had been a member of the BNP in the past joining. This was something that could be verified rather than the spurious accusations of someone being a racist.
As such it served to tighten the rules against racists joining the patry and sets UKIP apart from the other parties - including the Tories - who are apparently quite happy for former BNP members to join their ranks.
*I have said you should know better but of course we all know you do not know better and are happy (by your own admission) to ignore facts and 'details' as you call them when they get in the way of your smears.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
UKIP today are in some ways like PIE in the 1970s, in the sense that anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association. .
I don't like UKIP, but no they aren't. Don't be an arse.
Another one who didn't read it properly.
Cameron has judged that in the future the only respectable view to hold of UKIP will be that they were fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, and he said so out loud at the time. His judgement on this stuff is pretty sound, I suggest.
Your party is led by a man who had to repay a five-figure sum in 2009.
When you can show me 45 Tory MPs who've been imprisoned and another 45 who've had to repay such sums, I'll agree that this is 31% of the PCP and that they're about as corrupt as UKIP.
Your're making the basic of error of extrapolating from a very small sample size. If you really want me to list every Conservative MP, MEP, Peer, councillor who's been guilty of financial impropriety in recent years, I'll do so, but it would be a lengthy and tedious business.
No, that doesn't work. A party with 300 MPs has to find 300 honest people. It is certain to let in the odd scrote by mistake. A party with a mere 13 MEPs only has to find 13 honest people and couldn't. They managed to find nine.
If UKIP had 300 MPs it wouldn't be 31% that were dodgy, it would 80%.
What is it about UKIP that attracts a man like Neil Hamilton, do you suppose?
Honestly you really are off your head. Parties of all hues have attracted what have turned out to be convicted (and in some cases time-serving) criminals. Anybody on PB knows that.
Jesus wept. I've just received an email recommending that we use the hashtag "#kudos" to big up the achievements of others on our work "social intranet".
All I want to do is do my job, and then go home. What the hell is wrong with that?
Unless the Green Party's stance as changed considerably since the 2010 manifesto, it is my understanding that it would require Britain to leave the EU. If that's right, it's verging on incredible that it is barely mentioned at all.
Edit: The Green Party want a huge number of fundamental changes to the EU - http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/eu.html - EU901 "Whilst the Green Party is opposed to the objectives, structure and policies of the EU as currently constituted, as long as the U.K. remains a member of the EU the Green Party will stand in elections to the European Parliament and elected Green MEPs will work for fundamental reform of the EU from within... Any UK decision to withdraw from the EU shall be subject to a referendum."
I watched a Sky News political clip earlier. One of the talking head journalists called UKIP a racist party, and then went on to say that Mr Farage is not a racist. Very odd.
Back from my morning walk in the glorious May sunshine only to find yet another thread has degenerated into the same small group of people making the same allegations about a party they don't like. How about moving on, fellows, saying the same thing over and over again day after day is not going to change any views or votes, especially on this site, and what message you had is just diluted not enhanced by the repetition.
When everyone you dislike is called "racist", it tends to devalue the word. It sounds more like a school playground ... "You smell, you do, so there!" Especially when the word can mean whatever you want it to.
And the response is never constructive. "Oh? You think 99% of the population is racist, and you're the font of all wisdom, are you?"
A proportion of the British public probably is racist. Some are aware of this possibility and tend to over-compensate - so they're racist in the opposite direction. And most are vaguely aware that it's a problem but get annoyed by the jumped-up, self-appointed guardians of public morality. And you wonder why Ukip is doing well?
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton.
I don't remember Hamilton being accused of making homophobic or racist statements. Of course if you are trying to widen the discussion to bring in dodgy money matters then we can have a whole list of Tories who have been guilty of fraud, misuse of expenses and all manner of financial irregularities.
And of course Hamilton was a Tory when he committed his crimes.
Obviously I'm talking about money, Richard. Don't be obtuse. Neil Hamilton was the man alleged to have accepted cash for asking questions in Parliament and who sent Mobil a bill for £10,000 out of the blue after he did something helpful to them. He lost a libel trial about these matters. He is a greedy man of bad character. And he's a honch in UKIP, who think he's fine. Contrary to your assertion that UKIP chucks such people out.
What is it about UKIP that attracts a man like Neil Hamilton, do you suppose?
No idea. What was it about the Tory party that attracted him in the first place and allowed him to rise to such a high position in the party? Could it be because the Tory party are inherently corrupt and self serving?
That was of course a rhetorical question as we all know the answer already.
Bear in mind my view is that ALL parties are corrupt and self serving as are almost all politicians. The difference is that you think your party are better than anyone else's whilst in reality they are just as bad (or in my view actually worse as they are filled with hypocrites as well)
I posted up a list last week of Tory councillors who had been making racist and homophobic comments including some deemed criminal but who had remained - and still remain - as Tory councillors. I could have posted plenty more. Of course you ignore those because they are Tory not UKIP and becuase they undermine your whole argument that UKIP is any more racist or homophobic than your own party.
A round up of the latest frauds, crimes & racism from Labour Conservative and Lib Dem councillors sreported in local, but not national, press in the last 2 or 3 days
Tories - 2 on firearms offences, 1 for falsely claiming to be a barrister, 1 drink driving ban, 1 disqualified for benefits fraud, 1 cronyism over pub license breach, 1 accused of sexist remarks
Labour - 1 banned from office for bullying, 1 cronyism delaying prosecution for benefits fraud, 1 electoral fraud allegation, 5 resignations over racism claims, 2 resignations over homophobia claims, 1 facing investigation into homophobic remarks
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton.
I don't remember Hamilton being accused of making homophobic or racist statements. Of course if you are trying to widen the discussion to bring in dodgy money matters then we can have a whole list of Tories who have been guilty of fraud, misuse of expenses and all manner of financial irregularities.
And of course Hamilton was a Tory when he committed his crimes.
Obviously I'm talking about money, Richard. Don't be obtuse. Neil Hamilton was the man alleged to have accepted cash for asking questions in Parliament and who sent Mobil a bill for £10,000 out of the blue after he did something helpful to them. He lost a libel trial about these matters. He is a greedy man of bad character. And he's a honch in UKIP, who think he's fine. Contrary to your assertion that UKIP chucks such people out.
What is it about UKIP that attracts a man like Neil Hamilton, do you suppose?
They are just a Tory offshoot so he will feel at home.
Comments
Just MOE. It was Lab +4 on Friday.
Let's wait until after the Euros, that would be my advice, before betting.
I see no discernible difference between UKIP's views on immigration today, and the Conservatives' views on immigration in 2005. Perhaps the Conservatives have now repudiated the views on immigration which hey held in 2005, but if so, they can't be surprised that they've lost votes to UKIP.
I heard the same interview. It was quite clear to me that James O'Brien detests UKIP, holds their voters (a big chunk of his own listeners) in contempt and was out to nail Farage and 'expose' him. But that does not excuse Farage's performance.
His responses made me wince a little. He must learn to be balanced and reasonable on these points - as I know he his - otherwise people will go, "Ugh, well I agree with a lot of what he says. But I don't want to be associated with that."
I wonder if Better Together would then allow UKIP to join their gang?
Already there are the inevitable signs of a mutual appreciation society between Shadsy's and OGH's sites.
1) Some of Labour's economic policies are very popular with the electorate
2) When it comes to believing which parties is the best for the voter and their families, Lab is head of the Tories.
It's not IMO unnatural. If you went to live in Bulgaria and there was a local or European election, you'd probably take advice from long-term British residents the first time round, especially if the British community felt under pressure from some politicians, but you'd make up your own mind after a few years.
On the whole, Labour has benefited most from "community voting" over the years, so the trend away from it forces us to make more of an effort, which is good all round.
Everything is starting to look like it was before the car hit the wall, except for greater inequality in wealth, and cuts in services, meaning that for the vast majority of this country, the pips have been well and truly squeezed.
Am I being too pessimistic in wondering if this is a "good" thing?
This time there are not the same dynamics in place and also not the same number of LD activists about.
I dont think the council will change from where it is now but it is a possibility.
Even you must concede that the LDs in Sutton hit a high water mark in 2010 the LDs on the ground tell me that.
My prediction for what its worth is LDs 30 Tory 19 others 5..what do you think?
With the polls having moved quite markedly over the last few weeks, is there any chance please of you writing a piece on of the best value, say the top 20 betting opportunities, for the Tories retaining seats which for so long have seen seen as being certain Labour wins and therefore available at decent odds?
Here and now there is surely some value available in this territory.
Public sector workers: Labour lead by 47% to 24%
Private sector workers: Labour lead by 35% to 33%
All other voters*: Conservatives lead by 41% to 28%
* Including unemployed, long-term sick, retired, those caring for children or other relatives, students, etc, but probably mostly the retired, given differential turnout.
It's the age-old problem for Labour. They have to convince the under-50s that they aren't too busy to bother to vote.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/tiredness-the-main-cause-of-racism-say-experts-2014051986702
In 2006, David Cameron made a widely commented upon observation about UKIP.
Every time a Kipper says something 'controversial' it is a boost for Dave, and some voters who were thinking of voting UKIP maybe put off, and that Dave was right.
The fact the a Lab led alliance is doing this is a bonus.
I know, most Kippers can't comprehend the statement "David Cameron was right", but occasionally he is.
(1) is not necessarily an advantage. Voters can perversely recoil from political parties that appear to just be adopting their popular prejudices. For as long as I can remember, voters have overwhelming supported rail renationalisation. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be terrified at the prospect of Labour actually doing it. If Labour's manifesto is just a good-bag of 'we'll give you what you want' sweeties, voters will smell a rat, spot the inconsistencies and lack of credibility, and won't vote for them.
(2) That's mainly a reflection of the 'understands people like you' trait. Voters have (once again, for as long as I can remember) perceived Labour as the party of the common man, and Tories as the party of the privileged elite.
Neither of those things are election winners. It's heart over head stuff - and head will win. But I'm happy for Labour to think they are, if it prolongs their delusion.
The problem is that, as has been pointed out already, the average UKIP MEP is more likely to be imprisoned than the average Romanian immigrant. 2 of UKIP's 13 MEPs have been jailed and 2 more had to pay back £40 grand between them. Next to this record of dedicated larceny, Romanian efforts pale, frankly.
The problem with this claim, Richard, is Neil Hamilton. Yep. In 2010 they held on to 18% of their 2009 euros vote share. Assuming they repeat that level of vote retention, they'll achieve about 5% in 2015.
One factor may allow them to do slightly better. 2010 was a historic emergency in which every voter's duty was to remove Labour, and in particular Gordon Brown, from office by every possible means. Many, wrongly in my view, think the emergency is now past, and that by 2015 it will again be safe to cast votes for joke parties. This may enable UKIP to retain more than 18% of whatever they poll this week - but not much more.
http://youtu.be/KuStsFW4EmQ
That maybe an insurmountable problem for Labour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27465050
If they were a 2/1 shot, they would be 2/1 on Betfair
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27449159
He was right about gay marriage, he was right about Osborne as chancellor, he was right to offer the mueslis a full coalition, and he was right about UKIP. I'm not sure he's right about keeping Scotland in the union, but his judgement is otherwise so sound that you suspect he is.
I think he has concluded that in 20-odd years' time, it will for any public figure be somewhere between excruciatingly embarrassing and downright damaging ever to have said something like "actually UKIP have a point". UKIP today are in some ways like PIE in the 1970s, in the sense that anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association.
Meanwhile they're doing a fine job of providing nutters with somewhere else to go. They're the egg white fining the wine.
Also, most climate scientists are lizard sypathisers who will not rest until our society in under the dominion of the all powerful Grand High Newt.
1) It's too late to do much to stop global warming
2) Questionable whether anything could have been done in the first place.
Might as well just enjoy the ride. It could be bumpy though.
"UKIP today are in some ways like PIE in the 1970s"
Comparing UKIP to paedophiles. You're making a fool out of yourself.
To give you an example, my Mother to my immense surprise mentioned over the weekend she may vote UKIP on Thursday, but she said, they seem a bit anti Muslim don't they and isn't sure, she remembers Cameron's comment.
Lizards being cold blooded need more external heat to raise their functional abilities......
I am starting to see your point!
Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us.
Maybe that’s what the coming Romney moment is about: independents, conservatives, Republicans, even some Democrats, thinking: We can turn it around, we can work together, we can right this thing, and he can help.
Peggy Noonan, November 5th 2012.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-overtakes-new-york-to-be-named-worlds-finance-capital-9394994.html
My Mum is still planning to vote Lib Dem in 2015.
As I've noted before, she's not happy with the Roma influx into Sheffield.
And of course Hamilton was a Tory when he committed his crimes.
The point is, that perceptions of those around us do not matter more than methodologically sound polls with large sample sizes. Those that think they are end up getting embarrassed.
But your attempt to pretend that antipathy against Romanians can't be racism is absurd.
It's a bit like the SNP trying to get Cameron involved in the Independence debate - he's too wise to do so.
So every time someone from the media/establishment mocks the voters, a few more defect. Best plan would be to ignore them, but that's impossible for metropolitan know-it-alls.
Post May 22nd, when the insults die away, so might Ukip. But will the establishment heed the lesson?
There is nobody more concerned with the niceties of race than the scions of the left. By contrast, I bet Farage probably doesn't even remotely know what race the romanians are. If indeed they are a 'race'.
People can contrast that with the fact that meanwhile in the Tory Party, the son of a Pakistani immigrant became a cabinet minister quite recently.
All Farage needed to say last Friday was what he has said today. Clearly he understands he crossed the line.
...
But that does not excuse Farage's performance.
His responses made me wince a little. He must learn to be balanced and reasonable on these points - as I know he his - otherwise people will go, "Ugh, well I agree with a lot of what he says. But I don't want to be associated with that."
One of the side-effects of following the current 'smear campaign' against UKIP is that I have been drawn into old archives of record and debate. One such source is a 2010 blog article entitled 'UKIP and the BNP'.
The story is of plot and counter-plot: how Farage managed to remove his predecessor, Michael Holmes, as leader of UKIP and how the two parties ganged up to remove John Tyndall as leader of the BNP in 1997. All this is familiar territory to any student of extremist politics and need not detain us further today.
What I did find of current interest though was the following quotation from an October 1999 Guardian article which reported on the then recent changes in leadership of both UKIP and the BNP:
These shenanigans have been observed with great interest by Nick Griffin and the BNP. Until 1997, under the leadership of Dr Alan Sked, UKIP's membership form included a clause stressing that racists were not allowed to join. Soon after Sked's departure, however, the clause mysteriously disappeared. The new leaders, Michael Holmes and Nigel Farage - who are now both MEPs - also set out to "combine our protest" with other anti-Euro campaigners. In his UKIP election leaflet this year, Holmes paid tribute to "citizens' patriotic protest groups" such as Save Our Sterling - presumably unaware that Save Our Sterling was run by the BNP. [My emphasis; original article http://bit.ly/1o6npLD ].
There may well be more to the Sked-Farage antipathy than misplaced apostrophes and the vengeance of the defeated. If this account is true, it looks as though a pre-meditated decision was made by UKIP's new party leaders in 1999 to court wider electoral support at the risk of the party becoming polluted by racism.
If this account is true, then UKIP and Farage have no one to blame except themselves for the current campaign against them being based on charges of tolerating racism.
Another one who didn't read it properly.
A nutty organisation sets out to promote some thoroughly unpleasant views, under the cloak of what it misrepresents as some sort of high-minded crusade by which we'll all benefit. The crusaders are deeply misunderstood, you see, and are nice people really, with whom all would agree if only they weren't so nastily picked on and not properly heard.
Unfortunately some key figures turn out to be criminals and do jail time, after which they are seen for what they actually are. Some people stupid enough to have been taken in by this, without actually agreeing with them, and who thought they did indeed deserve a fair hearing, said as much at the time. Decades later, they are hideously embarrassed, and their judgement and intelligence are thoroughly undermined in consequence.
This is the story of Harriet Harman and PIE. I am suggesting Cameron intuits about UKIP that eventually "...anyone daft enough to have any truck with them will only live to regret the association". If you want to go all tinfoil hat I can't help you because that's part of your problem.
Cameron has judged that in the future the only respectable view to hold of UKIP will be that they were fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, and he said so out loud at the time. His judgement on this stuff is pretty sound, I suggest. When you can show me 45 Tory MPs who've been imprisoned and another 45 who've had to repay such sums, I'll agree that this is 31% of the PCP and that they're about as corrupt as UKIP.
And I'm sure his foreign wife will be very upset at his hatred of foreigners.
In Survation's recent poll they included an ethnic designation: white/non-white. As I recall UKIP was ahead of the Conservatives with both groups.
Laughably pathetic. Comparing a party that has the support of 25%-30% of the UK population, on a cause that half the country backs, to a disgusting paedophile group that was only supported by parts of the radical left-wing establishment is clearly monumentally stupid.
"In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
My emphasis. Now, stop being so stupid.
UKIP, the party of Humpty Dumpty redefinition of words.
Antifrank is a Green.
What is it about UKIP that attracts a man like Neil Hamilton, do you suppose?
I do, however, agree with OGH that they would pose a genuine danger to our happiness and prosperity if given the reins of power.
As such it served to tighten the rules against racists joining the patry and sets UKIP apart from the other parties - including the Tories - who are apparently quite happy for former BNP members to join their ranks.
*I have said you should know better but of course we all know you do not know better and are happy (by your own admission) to ignore facts and 'details' as you call them when they get in the way of your smears.
If UKIP had 300 MPs it wouldn't be 31% that were dodgy, it would 80%.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100272038/are-you-a-racist-ed-miliband-wants-to-hear-from-you/
Honestly you really are off your head. Parties of all hues have attracted what have turned out to be convicted (and in some cases time-serving) criminals. Anybody on PB knows that.
All I want to do is do my job, and then go home. What the hell is wrong with that?
Where did Gordon Brown get 'British jobs for British workers' from....the boy scouts?
Edit: The Green Party want a huge number of fundamental changes to the EU - http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/eu.html - EU901 "Whilst the Green Party is opposed to the objectives, structure and policies of the EU as currently constituted, as long as the U.K. remains a member of the EU the Green Party will stand in elections to the European Parliament and elected Green MEPs will work for fundamental reform of the EU from within... Any UK decision to withdraw from the EU shall be subject to a referendum."
And the response is never constructive. "Oh? You think 99% of the population is racist, and you're the font of all wisdom, are you?"
A proportion of the British public probably is racist. Some are aware of this possibility and tend to over-compensate - so they're racist in the opposite direction. And most are vaguely aware that it's a problem but get annoyed by the jumped-up, self-appointed guardians of public morality. And you wonder why Ukip is doing well?
That was of course a rhetorical question as we all know the answer already.
Bear in mind my view is that ALL parties are corrupt and self serving as are almost all politicians. The difference is that you think your party are better than anyone else's whilst in reality they are just as bad (or in my view actually worse as they are filled with hypocrites as well)
I posted up a list last week of Tory councillors who had been making racist and homophobic comments including some deemed criminal but who had remained - and still remain - as Tory councillors. I could have posted plenty more. Of course you ignore those because they are Tory not UKIP and becuase they undermine your whole argument that UKIP is any more racist or homophobic than your own party.
Like I said. Hypocrisy
Tories - 2 on firearms offences, 1 for falsely claiming to be a barrister, 1 drink driving ban, 1 disqualified for benefits fraud, 1 cronyism over pub license breach, 1 accused of sexist remarks
Labour - 1 banned from office for bullying, 1 cronyism delaying prosecution for benefits fraud, 1 electoral fraud allegation, 5 resignations over racism claims, 2 resignations over homophobia claims, 1 facing investigation into homophobic remarks
Lib Dem - 2 on benefits fraud charges
http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-latest-digest-of-crimes-etc-by.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/10/phil-woolas-labour-fall-guy