"Mark is right when he argues that the BNP is often successful in so-called "forgotten" white areas, where many traditional Labour supporters say they feel alienated from modern political discourse and that no one in the Labour party is listening to them. A well-used BNP tactic is to focus on people who traditionally have voted Labour but now feel neglected by this government. All too often there is a lack of what might be described as a "safe space" for ordinary working people to air their feelings – they often struggle to find the language to say what they want without being accused of being racist."
Mrs Duffy was just such an ordinary working person. I would not give Nigel Farage that much leeway.
What was the horrific quote that Farage uttered?
"You know the difference"
How awful
Its a result of the media (and you see it perfectly from UKIP haters on here) expressing ridiculous faux outrage and that annoying "Im sorry I dont understand what you mean?" fake air of confusion, whenever someone says something that veers slightly from their dogmatic PC code.
@Easterross is "staggered" that Farage defended Helmer last night, well, all he said was it was worth considering that people in their 70s grew up in a time when homosexuality was illegal, and thought of as sinful in religious houses.. that is true, would anybody like to deny it?
So isnt it perfectly reasonable to expect people from that era to be less comfortable with gay marriage etc and cut them a bit of slack?
Helmer was a Tory when he made some unpleasant comments about homosexuality, and now he is a kipper he says he has relaxed his views so, although that is a pathetically weak, partisan argument from me, if you cant beat em, join em.
Sam, he cocked up, he admitted it himself, move on. The only person still showing any interest is you.
I predicted AIFE to receive more than 1%. I was guided by the results from 2009 when minor parties such as No2EU (1%), English Democrats (1.9%), Socialist Labour (1.1%), and the Christian People's Alliance (1.7%) all achieved 1% or more.
Even leaving aside the confusion issue, I think there's potential for AIFE to pick up support from people who want to give a direct anti-EU message, but for some reason have been put off by something Farage has said in the media, criticisms over expenses, etc [even if AIFE might be worse in that regard, without the media attention people won't know that].
Fair points, and you might well be right. On the other hand, there are several other anti-EU parties vying for the same market and I doubt whether AIFE has really made enough impact to distinguish itself as the principal thinking man's alternative to UKIP.
@antifrank. I thought about mentioning that, but then I remembered that it didn't stop people piling into Galloway in Bradford West. I don't really know enough about the respective communities to say whether there is an appreciable difference in attitudes to gambling.
"Mark is right when he argues that the BNP is often successful in so-called "forgotten" white areas, where many traditional Labour supporters say they feel alienated from modern political discourse and that no one in the Labour party is listening to them. A well-used BNP tactic is to focus on people who traditionally have voted Labour but now feel neglected by this government. All too often there is a lack of what might be described as a "safe space" for ordinary working people to air their feelings – they often struggle to find the language to say what they want without being accused of being racist."
Mrs Duffy was just such an ordinary working person. I would not give Nigel Farage that much leeway.
What was the horrific quote that Farage uttered?
"You know the difference"
How awful
Its a result of the media (and you see it perfectly from UKIP haters on here) expressing ridiculous faux outrage and that annoying "Im sorry I dont understand what you mean?" fake air of confusion, whenever someone says something that veers slightly from their dogmatic PC code.
@Easterross is "staggered" that Farage defended Helmer last night, well, all he said was it was worth considering that people in their 70s grew up in a time when homosexuality was illegal, and thought of as sinful in religious houses.. that is true, would anybody like to deny it?
So isnt it perfectly reasonable to expect people from that era to be less comfortable with gay marriage etc and cut them a bit of slack?
Helmer was a Tory when he made some unpleasant comments about homosexuality, and now he is a kipper he says he has relaxed his views so, although that is a pathetically weak, partisan argument from me, if you cant beat em, join em.
It's the frame of mind that the quote betrays, of Romanians as obvious undesirables. It's the direct descendant of "no Irish, no blacks, no dogs".
Ed is certainly crap. Labour generally is listless. The economy is improving. So why on earth aren't the Tories clear favourites to win the GE outright next year? They have everything in their favour, surely.
Perhaps we need a Cameron is crap thread
The usual excuse is that the electoral map does not favour the Tories. But this is not stopping them getting 40% of the vote. There is something else going on. Just about everything is in their favour, yet still a hung Parliament with them as the biggest party looks like the very best they can hope for.
A very effective, over many years, campaign to define Tories as people who will eat your babies and set fire to your grannies. This point is proven every time people are asked to rate policies without the party affiliation of that policy. Invariably approval drops when it is revealed to be a Tory policy. It's impressive how the losers managed to write the UK's political history, it's normally the winners who have that privilege.
So everybody else's fault then. Presumably Ed Miliband can say the same given recent poll findings that the policies he advocates are popular until they are associated with him:
I predicted AIFE to receive more than 1%. I was guided by the results from 2009 when minor parties such as No2EU (1%), English Democrats (1.9%), Socialist Labour (1.1%), and the Christian People's Alliance (1.7%) all achieved 1% or more.
Even leaving aside the confusion issue, I think there's potential for AIFE to pick up support from people who want to give a direct anti-EU message, but for some reason have been put off by something Farage has said in the media, criticisms over expenses, etc [even if AIFE might be worse in that regard, without the media attention people won't know that].
Fair points, and you might well be right. On the other hand, there are several other anti-EU parties vying for the same market and I doubt whether AIFE has really made enough impact to distinguish itself as the principal thinking man's alternative to UKIP.
I still find it ironic that a party consisting of racist rejects from UKIP and a smattering of ex-BNP members could be considered the 'thinking mans alternative'
Ed Miliband was today accused of being out of touch after estimating that the weekly shopping bill for his family of four was £70 to £80 – well below the national average.
The Labour leader has centred his pitch to voters as the party leader who understands the cost of living crisis.
Romanian says what the faux outrage PC lovers refuse to countenance
"...he was right, Romania is not a civilised country... this is not a race issue, I do not think Nigel Farage is racist. I think he's learned something from this influx of Romanians, some of them because are mixed up with gypies... it's just politically incorrect to call them gypies anymore... you can't... we can't even tell them apart. They have bad habits of exploiting their women and children and they are unruly".
Challenged again by Snow, who was clearly seeking a different response, Gordan said: "My argument is not about race, it is about right and wrong. Britain is the most civilised country in the world and if people come here they should be civilised."
Your comments clearly reveal your prejudices and affect your judgement Richard.
IDS knows that there is a lot of poverty in the UK, as do most politicians of all hues. That does not mean that he knows why it exists and what the best solutions are for alleviating it. His comments on food banks do not indicate he knows that much about the reality of them at all.
You are confusing two things.
It is an incontrovertible fact that IDS has spent a huge amount of time, effort, and his own money in finding out about poverty. Smarmeron was just plain wrong in his prejudiced comment that IDS doesn't know about the reality of poverty, including foodbanks and life on benefits - he knows a hell of a lot, because (to his enormous credit) he has put in the effort to find out.
You are making a completely different point, which is that his solutions may not be the optimal ones. Fair enough, that is quite arguable. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the left would have the courtesy to concentrate on that aspect, rather than on ridiculous personal attacks and claiming that IDS doesn't care, is deliberately targeting the poor and the disabled, etc etc?
It's already ended for YES but you can't quite accept it. YES is dead in the water and just awaiting the electorates signature on the death warrant dated 18th September 2014.
A premature ejaculation from Jack. A common problem among elderly men.
Us sprightlier types have more holding power, and we are going to pump, pump away until 22:00 on 18 September.
I think you'll find premature ejaculation is more common among the youth, and frankly what pump, hand held or mechanical, or other "marital aids" you decide to utilize in the privacy of your Swedish home is I suggest a matter solely for you and before the arrival in your bedchamber of your partner.
I seem to recall a few years ago hearing Salmond state it was a once in a lifetime referendum, or similar. Has he/the SNP/Yes confirmed that if No wins, they'll respect that and not seek to re-run the vote?
Those are obviously two different things - the first is ambiguous: can refer to the importance of the vote, and the time we have had to wait for it despite the delaying tactics deployed by the unionist side. So I'd want to check the context very carefully given the unionist habit of citing out of context.
The second is meaningless as all one need to do is to run on an electoral slate of redoing it (for whatever reason) and if one wins a majority then it can be done again with unimpeachable democratic credentials, like it or not. The question to my mind is more what would be perceived as reasonable vs unreasonable reason for redoing it in a few years, i.e. to make sure it would not backfire. The critical issue to my mind is whether the Unionists are perceived to have delivered whatever it is that they end up promising in return for a No vote - and that would include the implicit promise by the entire Better Together campaign that a No vote means no change, and especially no deterioration of the current situation.
To take a historical example, the Scots were assured that shipyards would be decimated [this time, more or less accurate to the classical definition] if they voted for devolution in 1979, and yet this happened all the same within the union. Likewise, if they end up outside the EU as a result of voting No ...
I still find it ironic that a party consisting of racist rejects from UKIP and a smattering of ex-BNP members could be considered the 'thinking mans alternative'
As far as I can tell, the only point of difference - other than personal feuds - between AIFE and UKIP is that the former want an immediate exit, whereas the latter want to use the Lisbon provisions for exit over two years.
I seem to recall a few years ago hearing Salmond state it was a once in a lifetime referendum, or similar. Has he/the SNP/Yes confirmed that if No wins, they'll respect that and not seek to re-run the vote?
Those are obviously two different things - the first is ambiguous: can refer to the importance of the vote, and the time we have had to wait for it despite the delaying tactics deployed by the unionist side. So I'd want to check the context very carefully given the unionist habit of citing out of context.
The second is meaningless as all one need to do is to run on an electoral slate of redoing it (for whatever reason) and if one wins a majority then it can be done again with unimpeachable democratic credentials, like it or not. The question to my mind is more what would be perceived as reasonable vs unreasonable reason for redoing it in a few years, i.e. to make sure it would not backfire. The critical issue to my mind is whether the Unionists are perceived to have delivered whatever it is that they end up promising in return for a No vote - and that would include the implicit promise by the entire Better Together campaign that a No vote means no change, and especially no deterioration of the current situation.
To take a historical example, the Scots were assured that shipyards would be decimated [this time, more or less accurate to the classical definition] if they voted for devolution in 1979, and yet this happened all the same within the union. Likewise, if they end up outside the EU as a result of voting No ...
So if I tweet that a no vote will mean free champagne on tap for all and it doesn't happen then there are valid grounds for another Indyref next year ?
Your comments clearly reveal your prejudices and affect your judgement Richard.
IDS knows that there is a lot of poverty in the UK, as do most politicians of all hues. That does not mean that he knows why it exists and what the best solutions are for alleviating it. His comments on food banks do not indicate he knows that much about the reality of them at all.
You are confusing two things.
It is an incontrovertible fact that IDS has spent a huge amount of time, effort, and his own money in finding out about poverty. Smarmeron was just plain wrong in his prejudiced comment that IDS doesn't know about the reality of poverty, including foodbanks and life on benefits - he knows a hell of a lot, because (to his enormous credit) he has put in the effort to find out.
You are making a completely different point, which is that his solutions may not be the optimal ones. Fair enough, that is quite arguable. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the left would have the courtesy to concentrate on that aspect, rather than on ridiculous personal attacks and claiming that IDS doesn't care, is deliberately targeting the poor and the disabled, etc etc?
I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that if IDS knew about the reality of poverty, including food banks and living on benefits, he would not advocate and implement the policies that he does.
Your comments clearly reveal your prejudices and affect your judgement Richard.
IDS knows that there is a lot of poverty in the UK, as do most politicians of all hues. That does not mean that he knows why it exists and what the best solutions are for alleviating it. His comments on food banks do not indicate he knows that much about the reality of them at all.
You are confusing two things.
It is an incontrovertible fact that IDS has spent a huge amount of time, effort, and his own money in finding out about poverty. Smarmeron was just plain wrong in his prejudiced comment that IDS doesn't know about the reality of poverty, including foodbanks and life on benefits - he knows a hell of a lot, because (to his enormous credit) he has put in the effort to find out.
You are making a completely different point, which is that his solutions may not be the optimal ones. Fair enough, that is quite arguable. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the left would have the courtesy to concentrate on that aspect, rather than on ridiculous personal attacks and claiming that IDS doesn't care, is deliberately targeting the poor and the disabled, etc etc?
I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that if IDS knew about the reality of poverty, including food banks and living on benefits, he would not advocate and implement the policies that he does.
Ed is certainly crap. Labour generally is listless. The economy is improving. So why on earth aren't the Tories clear favourites to win the GE outright next year? They have everything in their favour, surely.
Well, lots of reasons.
1. It has been a tough few years where prices have risen more quickly than wages. It has not been the good times.
2. The Government have failed to achieve some of their key objectives - despite all the austerity that people have experienced the deficit is still gargantuan. Manufacturing has grown more slowly than the economy as a whole. Exports have disappointed.
3. While Labour have not impressed, UKIP have clearly caught the imagination of some of the public. Cameron has attempted to imitate Blair by often campaigning against his base - on gay marriage for example. Unlike Blair, a credible enough party exists for dissatisfied voters in his base to move to. It's a glimpse of what might have been during the Blair years if the Left of Labour had created a more credible alternative than Respect et al.
4. The ties that bind people to the main two parties have broken, and the electorate has fractured as a result. Trade Unionism - the very basis of the Labour party - is still in retreat. The social influence of the Church of England - in many respects the basis of the Conservative Party - continues to decline. Consequently, 2001 was the last election at which either of the two parties achieved 40% of the vote at the general election, whereas in 1970 both Labour and the Conservatives took more than 40% of the vote.
5. The electoral battleground has been greatly tilted against the Conservatives, compared to earlier periods in history. It's interesting that in 2010, the Conservatives took 55.5% of the two-party share of the vote, which compares to 54.9% in 1992, or 54.3% in 1979. If DavidL is right, and the rise of UKIP improves the efficiency of the distribution of the remaining Conservative voters, while the movement of 2010 Lib Dems to Labour decreases the efficiency of the Labour vote, then it is possible that the Conservatives could win a majority on a reduced share of the two-party vote.
However, the marginals polling does not presently support such a prediction.
Your comments clearly reveal your prejudices and affect your judgement Richard.
IDS knows that there is a lot of poverty in the UK, as do most politicians of all hues. That does not mean that he knows why it exists and what the best solutions are for alleviating it. His comments on food banks do not indicate he knows that much about the reality of them at all.
You are confusing two things.
It is an incontrovertible fact that IDS has spent a huge amount of time, effort, and his own money in finding out about poverty. Smarmeron was just plain wrong in his prejudiced comment that IDS doesn't know about the reality of poverty, including foodbanks and life on benefits - he knows a hell of a lot, because (to his enormous credit) he has put in the effort to find out.
You are making a completely different point, which is that his solutions may not be the optimal ones. Fair enough, that is quite arguable. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the left would have the courtesy to concentrate on that aspect, rather than on ridiculous personal attacks and claiming that IDS doesn't care, is deliberately targeting the poor and the disabled, etc etc?
Well put. IDS may have faults, his solutions are open to debate. His actions and commitment show genuine concern and in depth knowledge of the problems.
I'm now of to see my latest Chelsea flower show gold medal exhibit.
I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that if IDS knew about the reality of poverty, including food banks and living on benefits, he would not advocate and implement the policies that he does.
So even for you, prejudice distorts reality. That's a disappointment, I thought better of you.
The idea that IDS, of all people in the country, doesn't know about the reality of poverty is just ludicrous. What on earth do you think he has been doing for the last decade?
Ed is certainly crap. Labour generally is listless. The economy is improving. So why on earth aren't the Tories clear favourites to win the GE outright next year? They have everything in their favour, surely.
Perhaps we need a Cameron is crap thread
The usual excuse is that the electoral map does not favour the Tories. But this is not stopping them getting 40% of the vote. There is something else going on. Just about everything is in their favour, yet still a hung Parliament with them as the biggest party looks like the very best they can hope for.
A very effective, over many years, campaign to define Tories as people who will eat your babies and set fire to your grannies. This point is proven every time people are asked to rate policies without the party affiliation of that policy. Invariably approval drops when it is revealed to be a Tory policy. It's impressive how the losers managed to write the UK's political history, it's normally the winners who have that privilege.
So everybody else's fault then. Presumably Ed Miliband can say the same given recent poll findings that the policies he advocates are popular until they are associated with him:
People support a policy until they find out its a Tory one, why is that? Is it because over the years they have been portrayed as lovelyand cuddly? Or is it because there has been a deliberate policy to portray them as baby eaters?
Incidentally, the Met Office have just issued a rain weather warning for the greater south-west for Thursday. I'm not convinced that the weather has a huge impact on turnout, but if you think it does then this area was the strongest for UKIP in 2009.
I seem to recall a few years ago hearing Salmond state it was a once in a lifetime referendum, or similar. Has he/the SNP/Yes confirmed that if No wins, they'll respect that and not seek to re-run the vote?
Those are obviously two different things - the first is ambiguous: can refer to the importance of the vote, and the time we have had to wait for it despite the delaying tactics deployed by the unionist side. So I'd want to check the context very carefully given the unionist habit of citing out of context.
The second is meaningless as all one need to do is to run on an electoral slate of redoing it (for whatever reason) and if one wins a majority then it can be done again with unimpeachable democratic credentials, like it or not. The question to my mind is more what would be perceived as reasonable vs unreasonable reason for redoing it in a few years, i.e. to make sure it would not backfire. The critical issue to my mind is whether the Unionists are perceived to have delivered whatever it is that they end up promising in return for a No vote - and that would include the implicit promise by the entire Better Together campaign that a No vote means no change, and especially no deterioration of the current situation.
To take a historical example, the Scots were assured that shipyards would be decimated [this time, more or less accurate to the classical definition] if they voted for devolution in 1979, and yet this happened all the same within the union. Likewise, if they end up outside the EU as a result of voting No ...
So if I tweet that a no vote will mean free champagne on tap for all and it doesn't happen then there are valid grounds for another Indyref next year ?
There are no grounds for another one before 2045.
Not in the least, because you are not PM of the UK (so far as I know - forgive me if you are).
What's the significance of 2045, if I may ask, please?
Ed is certainly crap. Labour generally is listless. The economy is improving. So why on earth aren't the Tories clear favourites to win the GE outright next year? They have everything in their favour, surely.
Perhaps we need a Cameron is crap thread
The usual excuse is that the electoral map does not favour the Tories. But this is not stopping them getting 40% of the vote. There is something else going on. Just about everything is in their favour, yet still a hung Parliament with them as the biggest party looks like the very best they can hope for.
A very effective, over many years, campaign to define Tories as people who will eat your babies and set fire to your grannies. This point is proven every time people are asked to rate policies without the party affiliation of that policy. Invariably approval drops when it is revealed to be a Tory policy. It's impressive how the losers managed to write the UK's political history, it's normally the winners who have that privilege.
So everybody else's fault then. Presumably Ed Miliband can say the same given recent poll findings that the policies he advocates are popular until they are associated with him:
People support a policy until they find out its a Tory one, why is that? Is it because over the years they have been portrayed as lovelyand cuddly? Or is it because there has been a deliberate policy to portray them as baby eaters?
Or they may have created that impression themselves, perhaps? Just as EdM may be responsible for the impression that he has created rather than being the passive victim of a plot to portray him in a certain way.
Must you persist with this vitriolic line about Ed? You have never met the guy, and it doesn't become you. You seem a sterling and polite chap generally so try leaving the nasty personal comments at home. You have a blind spot with Ed.
ed wants to take over the running of the country which MD inhabits; MD is therefore justified, as well as correct, in pointing out that ed is crap at such things as the running of countries.
Indeed. But my point was about his nasty personal comments about a man he has never met.
I would have more sympathy with your argument if it was not for your constant trolling on PB wrt ‘PBTories’ a unpleasant habit you are as yet to refrain from, going by your earlier comment to Financier.
PB Tory is NOT a personal comment. FFS
It sublimates the individual into an amorphous puddle. I can't think of a much more personal comment.
I disagree. I think it is perfectly reasonable to argue that if IDS knew about the reality of poverty, including food banks and living on benefits, he would not advocate and implement the policies that he does.
So even for you, prejudice distorts reality. That's a disappointment, I thought better of you.
The idea that IDS, of all people in the country, doesn't know about the reality of poverty is just ludicrous. What on earth do you think he has been doing for the last decade?
I think he has been looking at poverty and what causes it. That does not mean I believe he has understood the reality of it. My view is that if he had he would not advocate the policies that he does. This is not to question his motives or his sincerity, just his analysis.
Sadly, your prejudice means that you believe that anyone who does not see things in the way you do has venal motives.
I seem to recall a few years ago hearing Salmond state it was a once in a lifetime referendum, or similar. Has he/the SNP/Yes confirmed that if No wins, they'll respect that and not seek to re-run the vote?
Those are obviously two different things - the first is ambiguous: can refer to the importance of the vote, and the time we have had to wait for it despite the delaying tactics deployed by the unionist side. So I'd want to check the context very carefully given the unionist habit of citing out of context.
The second is meaningless as all one need to do is to run on an electoral slate of redoing it (for whatever reason) and if one wins a majority then it can be done again with unimpeachable democratic credentials, like it or not. The question to my mind is more what would be perceived as reasonable vs unreasonable reason for redoing it in a few years, i.e. to make sure it would not backfire. The critical issue to my mind is whether the Unionists are perceived to have delivered whatever it is that they end up promising in return for a No vote - and that would include the implicit promise by the entire Better Together campaign that a No vote means no change, and especially no deterioration of the current situation.
To take a historical example, the Scots were assured that shipyards would be decimated [this time, more or less accurate to the classical definition] if they voted for devolution in 1979, and yet this happened all the same within the union. Likewise, if they end up outside the EU as a result of voting No ...
So if I tweet that a no vote will mean free champagne on tap for all and it doesn't happen then there are valid grounds for another Indyref next year ?
There are no grounds for another one before 2045.
Not in the least, because you are not PM of the UK (so far as I know - forgive me if you are).
What's the significance of 2045, if I may ask, please?
300 year anniversary of Culloden
79 to 14 was 35 years - a generation. 2045 would be early to be honest.
Must you persist with this vitriolic line about Ed? You have never met the guy, and it doesn't become you. You seem a sterling and polite chap generally so try leaving the nasty personal comments at home. You have a blind spot with Ed.
ed wants to take over the running of the country which MD inhabits; MD is therefore justified, as well as correct, in pointing out that ed is crap at such things as the running of countries.
Indeed. But my point was about his nasty personal comments about a man he has never met.
I would have more sympathy with your argument if it was not for your constant trolling on PB wrt ‘PBTories’ a unpleasant habit you are as yet to refrain from, going by your earlier comment to Financier.
PB Tory is NOT a personal comment. FFS
It sublimates the individual into an amorphous puddle. I can't think of a much more personal comment.
Ed is certainly crap. Labour generally is listless. The economy is improving. So why on earth aren't the Tories clear favourites to win the GE outright next year? They have everything in their favour, surely.
Perhaps we need a Cameron is crap thread
The usual excuse is that the electoral map does not favour the Tories. But this is not stopping them getting 40% of the vote. There is something else going on. Just about everything is in their favour, yet still a hung Parliament with them as the biggest party looks like the very best they can hope for.
A very effective, over many years, campaign to define Tories as people who will eat your babies and set fire to your grannies. This point is proven every time people are asked to rate policies without the party affiliation of that policy. Invariably approval drops when it is revealed to be a Tory policy. It's impressive how the losers managed to write the UK's political history, it's normally the winners who have that privilege.
So everybody else's fault then. Presumably Ed Miliband can say the same given recent poll findings that the policies he advocates are popular until they are associated with him:
People support a policy until they find out its a Tory one, why is that? Is it because over the years they have been portrayed as lovelyand cuddly? Or is it because there has been a deliberate policy to portray them as baby eaters?
Or they may have created that impression themselves, perhaps? Just as EdM may be responsible for the impression that he has created rather than being the passive victim of a plot to portray him in a certain way.
Your correct as usual. I mean IDS spent years of his life and his own money learning about the issues surrounding poverty so he can identify ways to make their lives miserable. It's obvious now, he can't possibly have done it for any other reason.
IDS and welfare policy are a perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
He's taken his personal experience of a very small example of benefit recipients (late-teens/early-20 slackers in Easterhouse) and designed a punitive system that *may* have been suitable for them (lots of basic skills training & compulsory activity to stop them doing very little on a day to day basis) and applied it to the benefit system as a whole, when it clearly is not fit for purpose when applied to, for example, people in late-50s who have worked their whole lives and are now treated like criminals because there are more applicants than vacancies in any field within their reach. This cohort do not benefit from basic skills training or compulsory work activity (i.e. free labour for large corporations and charities) in any way.
Another example is the pathetic attempts to deal with the Housing Benefit budget, where the symptom (high HB spending) has been, sometimes it seems deliberately, mistaken for the cause (lack of housing supply) - this is why I have clients with cerebral palsy and dementia who are genuinely unable to heat their homes because they have to cover the rent short-fall caused by the bedroom tax. I'm sure his Christian morality makes him feel justified in his efforts, but from out here on the frontline all I see is misery and pain caused by his (and other governments) policies, particularly for people with disabilities and health problems.
(I very rarely comment on here, because I never have time to keep up with the discussions that then develop but I just had a spare moment because of a cancellation, so thought I'd chuck my thoughts in...)
@SouthamObserver - Now you are dancing on pins - you're now redefining the original phrase 'knowing about the reality of poverty' as meaning 'having the best policies for addressing poverty'. Still, you seem prepared to concede that he has been putting in effort to find out about poverty, that he is sincere, and that his motivations are honourable, so it seems we agree on the original point.
Ed is certainly crap. Labour generally is listless. The economy is improving. So why on earth aren't the Tories clear favourites to win the GE outright next year? They have everything in their favour, surely.
Because there are lots of people - yourself included, I believe - who don't rank "the economy" as the most important factor in determining their vote
I seem to recall a few years ago hearing Salmond state it was a once in a lifetime referendum, or similar. Has he/the SNP/Yes confirmed that if No wins, they'll respect that and not seek to re-run the vote?
Those are obviously two different things - the first is ambiguous: can refer to the importance of the vote, and the time we have had to wait for it despite the delaying tactics deployed by the unionist side. So I'd want to check the context very carefully given the unionist habit of citing out of context.
The second is meaningless as all one need to do is to run on an electoral slate of redoing it (for whatever reason) and if one wins a majority then it can be done again with unimpeachable democratic credentials, like it or not. The question to my mind is more what would be perceived as reasonable vs unreasonable reason for redoing it in a few years, i.e. to make sure it would not backfire. The critical issue to my mind is whether the Unionists are perceived to have delivered whatever it is that they end up promising in return for a No vote - and that would include the implicit promise by the entire Better Together campaign that a No vote means no change, and especially no deterioration of the current situation.
To take a historical example, the Scots were assured that shipyards would be decimated [this time, more or less accurate to the classical definition] if they voted for devolution in 1979, and yet this happened all the same within the union. Likewise, if they end up outside the EU as a result of voting No ...
So if I tweet that a no vote will mean free champagne on tap for all and it doesn't happen then there are valid grounds for another Indyref next year ?
There are no grounds for another one before 2045.
Not in the least, because you are not PM of the UK (so far as I know - forgive me if you are).
What's the significance of 2045, if I may ask, please?
300 year anniversary of Culloden
79 to 14 was 35 years - a generation. 2045 would be early to be honest.
Culloden was 1746 - but if you have it as the anniversary of the '45 Rising you don't need to amend it ...
Can anyone explain this for me: Nigel Farage makes reference to Romanian criminal gangs, and this is a racist comment, a member of the public asks Gordon Brown "Where are they all flocking from?" and this is NOT bigoted. Hmmm?
I don't think people said that Gillian Duffy wasn't bigoted, they just felt that Gordon Brown shouldn't have insulted her.
IDS and welfare policy are a perfect example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
He's taken his personal experience of a very small example of benefit recipients (late-teens/early-20 slackers in Easterhouse) and designed a punitive system that *may* have been suitable for them (lots of basic skills training & compulsory activity to stop them doing very little on a day to day basis) and applied it to the benefit system as a whole, when it clearly is not fit for purpose when applied to, for example, people in late-50s who have worked their whole lives and are now treated like criminals because there are more applicants than vacancies in any field within their reach. This cohort do not benefit from basic skills training or compulsory work activity (i.e. free labour for large corporations and charities) in any way.
Another example is the pathetic attempts to deal with the Housing Benefit budget, where the symptom (high HB spending) has been, sometimes it seems deliberately, mistaken for the cause (lack of housing supply) - this is why I have clients with cerebral palsy and dementia who are genuinely unable to heat their homes because they have to cover the rent short-fall caused by the bedroom tax. I'm sure his Christian morality makes him feel justified in his efforts, but from out here on the frontline all I see is misery and pain caused by his (and other governments) policies, particularly for people with disabilities and health problems.
(I very rarely comment on here, because I never have time to keep up with the discussions that then develop but I just had a spare moment because of a cancellation, so thought I'd chuck my thoughts in...)
IDS's passion may have been ignited in Easterhouse - which I visited with him in the early 00s - but the work he and the Centre for Social Justice have done since then has been very broadly based. Debt, drugs, housing, modern slavery, family breakdown; all areas that he has personally researched and seen first hand. Of course, you can disagree with his solutions, and it is clear from BenS that all is not running smoothly, but to dismiss him as divorced from the reality of the situation is simply wrong and, as Richard N observes, indicates prejudice against him purely because he is a Conservative.
Conservative %: 25 Labour %: 23 Lib Dem %: 8 UKIP %: 35 Green %: 8 An Independence from Europe %: 1
I've been gobbing off for months about how labour's decent poll share won;t translate into votes for ed at the ballot box, so I better put my prediction where my mouth is
I seem to recall a few years ago hearing Salmond state it was a once in a lifetime referendum, or similar. Has he/the SNP/Yes confirmed that if No wins, they'll respect that and not seek to re-run the vote?
Such a decision would be the prerogative of the Scottish electorate. If they wanted another referendum then they would vote for it. If they didn't, they wouldn't.
@SouthamObserver - Now you are dancing on pins - you're now redefining the original phrase 'knowing about the reality of poverty' as meaning 'having the best policies for addressing poverty'. Still, you seem prepared to concede that he has been putting in effort to find out about poverty, that he is sincere, and that his motivations are honourable, so it seems we agree on the original point.
I have always said that about IDS - though I dislike his very selective use of statistics.
I don't think I am dancing on pins though. If I believed that IDS understood the reality of poverty and welfare any opposition that I had to his policies would indeed be based on partisanship and blind prejudice. It's because I do not think he understands the reality that I believe his policies are wrong and potentially very damaging, not because I believe he is a wicked Tory.
Conservative %: 25 Labour %: 23 Lib Dem %: 8 UKIP %: 35 Green %: 8 An Independence from Europe %: 1
I've been gobbing off for months about how labour's decent poll share won;t translate into votes for ed at the ballot box, so I better put my prediction where my mouth is
I seem to recall a few years ago hearing Salmond state it was a once in a lifetime referendum, or similar. Has he/the SNP/Yes confirmed that if No wins, they'll respect that and not seek to re-run the vote?
Such a decision would be the prerogative of the Scottish electorate. If they wanted another referendum then they would vote for it. If they didn't, they wouldn't.
Perhaps have a daily referendum - yougov could help out..
IDS's passion may have been ignited in Easterhouse - which I visited with him in the early 00s - but the work he and the Centre for Social Justice have done since then has been very broadly based. Debt, drugs, housing, modern slavery, family breakdown; all areas that he has personally researched and seen first hand. Of course, you can disagree with his solutions, and it is clear from BenS that all is not running smoothly, but to dismiss him as divorced from the reality of the situation is simply wrong and, as Richard N observes, indicates prejudice against him purely because he is a Conservative.
Who said anything about IDS being divorced from reality? The argument is that his solutions to the problems he has encountered do not indicate he has fully understood the reality of what he has seen. To believe that he does understand the reality but still to oppose his policies would indicate prejudice against him because he is a Conservative.
Conservative %: 25 Labour %: 23 Lib Dem %: 8 UKIP %: 35 Green %: 8 An Independence from Europe %: 1
I've been gobbing off for months about how labour's decent poll share won;t translate into votes for ed at the ballot box, so I better put my prediction where my mouth is
Contrarian and proud.
Sorry to disappoint, but I really think that 'Others' (SNP/PC/NotoEU/Pirate/BNP etc. etc.) will get more than 0%
Must you persist with this vitriolic line about Ed? You have never met the guy, and it doesn't become you. You seem a sterling and polite chap generally so try leaving the nasty personal comments at home. You have a blind spot with Ed.
ed wants to take over the running of the country which MD inhabits; MD is therefore justified, as well as correct, in pointing out that ed is crap at such things as the running of countries.
Indeed. But my point was about his nasty personal comments about a man he has never met.
I would have more sympathy with your argument if it was not for your constant trolling on PB wrt ‘PBTories’ a unpleasant habit you are as yet to refrain from, going by your earlier comment to Financier.
PB Tory is NOT a personal comment. FFS
It sublimates the individual into an amorphous puddle. I can't think of a much more personal comment.
Lefty, Labourite, Gnat, Leftard?
Lefty is a generic comment on political outlook (if you want to call people "righties" no one would care, but it doesn't scan well)
Labourite indicates a party affiliation (as does Tory). "PB Tory" is used as an insult without reference to someone's political party
Leftard I've said before is insulting and shouldn't be used. I'd put Gnat in the shouldn't be used category as well, but mainly because it isn't particularly funny.
It is an incontrovertible fact that IDS has spent a huge amount of time, effort, and his own money in finding out about poverty. Smarmeron was just plain wrong in his prejudiced comment that IDS doesn't know about the reality of poverty, including foodbanks and life on benefits - he knows a hell of a lot, because (to his enormous credit) he has put in the effort to find out.
How Bob Holman, Duncan Smith's Easterhouse chaperon during his compassionate Conservatism epiphany (and who IDS described as a 'living saint'), now views him.
'“I went down to the Commons. Nice cup of coffee; he’s very polite, he’s always very nice. Two things came out of this. The first thing he said was, ‘I’ve got to make cuts because Osborne has continuously reduced the welfare [budget]’ – the welfare money, the money that Iain Duncan Smith gets to run it, therefore, I think he’s found it very difficult to get his Universal Credit at a level which will take people out of poverty, which obviously he’s not going to do now. The second thing was that I tackled him over his promise that locally-run groups like ours would get money directly from government. I said, ‘you’ve promised that, you’ve told me, it’s been in the press’. And, well, he says, ‘it’s your fault’. ‘My fault,’ I say. ‘Yes’, he says, ‘it’s the Labour Party’s fault for leaving the economy in such a mess, we couldn’t do it.’ Although, in fact, the amount of money it would cost is pretty minimal. He hasn’t pursued it; he’s just dropped it. We agreed to differ but at the end I was saying to him, ‘you should resign and outside of being a minister, you should be campaigning for the things you used to say’. And, as I went, he said, ‘perhaps you’re right’.
But did Holman get a sense that Duncan Smith felt any sort of shame for the programme he has carried through?
“I think that he’s got a mixture of feelings. I think he must feel disappointed that he hasn’t been able to tackle poverty and he must feel … ashamed is maybe too strong a word, he’s trying to balance his loyalty to his party with his commitment to the poor. And in my view, they can’t be balanced. You’ve got to come down on the side of the poor.”'
"Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott · 15h The print media campaign vs UKIP has been remorseless. How well Farage does on Thurs will give an insight in2 power or otherwise of papers"
Conservative %: 25 Labour %: 23 Lib Dem %: 8 UKIP %: 35 Green %: 8 An Independence from Europe %: 1
I've been gobbing off for months about how labour's decent poll share won;t translate into votes for ed at the ballot box, so I better put my prediction where my mouth is
Contrarian and proud.
Sorry to disappoint, but I really think that 'Others' (SNP/PC/NotoEU/Pirate/BNP etc. etc.) will get more than 0%
Labourites rage at IDS when his changes haven't even hit Easterhouse yet is interesting - especially when viewed against their support for the policies that have failed over the last 40 years.
...indicates prejudice against him purely because he is a Conservative.
As a digression to this discussion, it's a well-established fact of human psychology that the brain frequently uses cognitive shortcuts to make judgements more quickly, sacrificing a degree of accuracy for speed and efficiency.
Generally speaking, these cognitive shortcuts work pretty well and you can see them on all sides of political debate. However, they do make political debate rather difficult, because it means that the debate is very rarely about the specifics of the issue at hand, but is about people's different cognitive shortcuts, that have been formed over many years of [differing] experience.
In essence I do not trust IDS and I do not trust him because he is a Tory. Now I can dress this up by pointing to details that reinforce this prejudice - the proposal to charge for appealing against DWP decisions that seems to have been floated because too many of the appeals were successful, etc, but I can admit that it is essentially a prejudice that it would take a lot of contrary evidence to overcome.
I don't feel ashamed of holding this prejudice, and it's not one that is directed uniquely at Tories - the New Labour record on welfare reform is little different in my opinion according to my prejudices - and I feel that my prejudice is justified in the light of the information available to me.
The point I am making is that if I enter into a debate about IDS's welfare reforms with you, we are mostly going to be talking indirectly about our respective prejudices, rather than about the abstract policy detail.
Can anyone explain this for me: Nigel Farage makes reference to Romanian criminal gangs, and this is a racist comment, a member of the public asks Gordon Brown "Where are they all flocking from?" and this is NOT bigoted. Hmmm?
I don't think people said that Gillian Duffy wasn't bigoted, they just felt that Gordon Brown shouldn't have insulted her.
He called her a bigot. If people thought she was a bigot, how is that an insult? There were very few commentators at the time who were prepared to say that what she said was bigoted. I only wish Gordon had had the balls to stick by what he had said and said to Vine "Are you denying that what she said was bigoted? I stand by what I said" Might have changed the outcome of the election!
@Theuniondivvie - It's hardly a state secret that IDS would like a bigger welfare budget in the short term to help smooth over the structural reforms. It's also hardly a state secret that Osborne has no choice but to cut the welfare budget - as one of the big ticket items - if we're to get the public finances back towards a semblance of sanity.
It's called 'reality'. Competing priorities have to be balanced, and the money just isn't there to do everything IDS would like. Making those difficult choices is what good government is about.
Its clear Ed hasn't got a fecking clue what he is talking about. Wife and two kids 70 quid a week. He cannot be serious.. I expect he has a servant to do the shopping for him.
Maybe he pays £70, and his wife pays another £70? He was asked about his expense, after all.
Seriously?
Maybe Mr and Mrs Milliband are like Mr and Mrs Balls and live in different houses for Expenses purposes?
Must you persist with this vitriolic line about Ed? You have never met the guy, and it doesn't become you. You seem a sterling and polite chap generally so try leaving the nasty personal comments at home. You have a blind spot with Ed.
ed wants to take over the running of the country which MD inhabits; MD is therefore justified, as well as correct, in pointing out that ed is crap at such things as the running of countries.
Indeed. But my point was about his nasty personal comments about a man he has never met.
I would have more sympathy with your argument if it was not for your constant trolling on PB wrt ‘PBTories’ a unpleasant habit you are as yet to refrain from, going by your earlier comment to Financier.
PB Tory is NOT a personal comment. FFS
It sublimates the individual into an amorphous puddle. I can't think of a much more personal comment.
Lefty, Labourite, Gnat, Leftard?
Lefty is a generic comment on political outlook (if you want to call people "righties" no one would care, but it doesn't scan well)
Labourite indicates a party affiliation (as does Tory). "PB Tory" is used as an insult without reference to someone's political party
Leftard I've said before is insulting and shouldn't be used. I'd put Gnat in the shouldn't be used category as well, but mainly because it isn't particularly funny.
PBTory gets around the 'herd' ban. It's the same thing.
Just made my predictions but I can't remember the exact figures LOL!
But I had UKIP/Lab/Con as my 1,2,3, aound 8% for LD's, 5% for Green and 1 for the Euro thingy group (Whom, I confess, I hadn't even heard of prior to this morning!).
Interestingly I had a leaflet through the door the other day from Catherine Bearder who is LD MEP in the SE. It was mainly talking about the threat to jobs from leaving the EU
Photos of Bearder - 1 Photos of Nick Clegg - 0 Mentions of Nick Clegg - 0 (Surely she would have wanted to mention his big speech 10 miles up the road!)
Out of the 4 leaflets I've had through the door the only one with a photo of Clegg is the UKIP one!
Can anyone explain this for me: Nigel Farage makes reference to Romanian criminal gangs, and this is a racist comment, a member of the public asks Gordon Brown "Where are they all flocking from?" and this is NOT bigoted. Hmmm?
I don't think people said that Gillian Duffy wasn't bigoted, they just felt that Gordon Brown shouldn't have insulted her.
He called her a bigot. If people thought she was a bigot, how is that an insult? There were very few commentators at the time who were prepared to say that what she said was bigoted. I only wish Gordon had had the balls to stick by what he had said and said to Vine "Are you denying that what she said was bigoted? I stand by what I said" Might have changed the outcome of the election!
The funny/ironic thing about the whole bigot thing was that I thought Gordon Brown dealt very well with her questions about immigration.
Mr. Vale, doesn't the UKIP leaflet have photos of all the main leaders?
Mr. 1000, I did not know that. A quick google check suggests it means/meant 'excessive patriotism', which is the exact opposite of Clegg's other "I love EU long time" assertion that not liking the EU was 'unpatriotic'.
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but Opinium Research have another Euro Election poll in the Mail. They give UKIP 31%, Labour 29%, Conservative 20%, Green and Lib Dems 5% each.
Can anyone explain this for me: Nigel Farage makes reference to Romanian criminal gangs, and this is a racist comment, a member of the public asks Gordon Brown "Where are they all flocking from?" and this is NOT bigoted. Hmmm?
I don't think people said that Gillian Duffy wasn't bigoted, they just felt that Gordon Brown shouldn't have insulted her.
I don't think people said that Gillian Duffy wasn't bigoted, they just felt that Gordon Brown shouldn't have insulted her.
Gillian Duffy is not bigoted, she had concerns about immigration which she voiced in the only language she knows. - It may come as a shock, but most middle aged WWC women are not PC media savvy.
Just made my predictions but I can't remember the exact figures LOL!
But I had UKIP/Lab/Con as my 1,2,3, aound 8% for LD's, 5% for Green and 1 for the Euro thingy group (Whom, I confess, I hadn't even heard of prior to this morning!).
The "Euro thingy group" is seen as a possible spoiler to UKIP, as they are using the tag line "UK independence now" (and appear at the top of the ballot).
Can anyone explain this for me: Nigel Farage makes reference to Romanian criminal gangs, and this is a racist comment, a member of the public asks Gordon Brown "Where are they all flocking from?" and this is NOT bigoted. Hmmm?
I don't think people said that Gillian Duffy wasn't bigoted, they just felt that Gordon Brown shouldn't have insulted her.
He called her a bigot. If people thought she was a bigot, how is that an insult?
Most people think John Terry is a bit of a complete tw@t. That doesn't mean calling him a tw@t is not an insult.
Can anyone explain this for me: Nigel Farage makes reference to Romanian criminal gangs, and this is a racist comment, a member of the public asks Gordon Brown "Where are they all flocking from?" and this is NOT bigoted. Hmmm?
I don't think people said that Gillian Duffy wasn't bigoted, they just felt that Gordon Brown shouldn't have insulted her.
I don't consider that Mrs. Duffy was a bigot. Unless, we're defining the term "bigot" so broadly as to encompass a large majority of the population.
It is an incontrovertible fact that IDS has spent a huge amount of time, effort, and his own money in finding out about poverty. Smarmeron was just plain wrong in his prejudiced comment that IDS doesn't know about the reality of poverty, including foodbanks and life on benefits - he knows a hell of a lot, because (to his enormous credit) he has put in the effort to find out.
Amusingly regarding the Cons campaigning contribution to the Indy campaign, they've said 'We are clearly not sending anyone to Easterhouse'.
What benefit has Easterhouse gained from generations of Labour control?
My guess for the London Borough elections would be Con 31%, Lab 35%, Lib Dem 14%, Green 10%, UKIP 6%, Others 4%.
Cons lose Havering to noc, but gain Kingston from Lib Dems. Labour gain Harrow and Merton from noc, otherwise no change.
Sean if the differential goes out as you predict between the Cons and Lds in the locals then Sutton has to be under threat. Just look at the 2006 results when the Tories went close there.
This article provides food for thought for all those thinking labour will do well in the euros, and in 2015.
That sentiment is rife. Glad the Indy reported it, when I have mentioned it Labour supporters on here hit the roof, they dfell they own the working class vote. I am an ex Labour supporter, (voted for them in 97, 01 & 10/forgot in 05) who feels exactly like this, hence I joined UKIP.
Note the language problem in schools... Farage said this to O'Brien last week and it was denounced because his kids are bilingual. UKIP haters of all hues rounded up to say it was no problem for English to be a second language
"...take Sarah Everitt. Her complaint is the 14 foreign children in her daughter’s class – some of whom have difficulty with English. The teachers spend more time with these children than the rest,"
So the majority of PBers do not consider the phrase "Where are they all flocking from?" to be bigoted. Maybe views would be different if people were part of the Flock being referred to?
Ed is certainly crap. Labour generally is listless. The economy is improving. So why on earth aren't the Tories clear favourites to win the GE outright next year? They have everything in their favour, surely.
Perhaps we need a Cameron is crap thread
The usual excuse is that the electoral map does not favour the Tories. But this is not stopping them getting 40% of the vote. There is something else going on. Just about everything is in their favour, yet still a hung Parliament with them as the biggest party looks like the very best they can hope for.
A very effective, over many years, campaign to define Tories as people who will eat your babies and set fire to your grannies. This point is proven every time people are asked to rate policies without the party affiliation of that policy. Invariably approval drops when it is revealed to be a Tory policy. It's impressive how the losers managed to write the UK's political history, it's normally the winners who have that privilege.
So everybody else's fault then. Presumably Ed Miliband can say the same given recent poll findings that the policies he advocates are popular until they are associated with him:
As Robert Smithson has pointed out, the Conservatives' biggest challenge is the gulf in attitudes that divides Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Britain. Mark Field has written an article on Con Home that demonstrates this perfectly. Mark Field is staunchly Europhile, politically correct, and very favourable to large-scale immigration. As such, his views resonate well with Conservative supporters in Westminster South, and would go down like a cup of cold sick with Conservative supporters in Thanet South.
...indicates prejudice against him purely because he is a Conservative.
As a digression to this discussion, it's a well-established fact of human psychology that the brain frequently uses cognitive shortcuts to make judgements more quickly, sacrificing a degree of accuracy for speed and efficiency.
Generally speaking, these cognitive shortcuts work pretty well and you can see them on all sides of political debate. However, they do make political debate rather difficult, because it means that the debate is very rarely about the specifics of the issue at hand, but is about people's different cognitive shortcuts, that have been formed over many years of [differing] experience.
In essence I do not trust IDS and I do not trust him because he is a Tory. Now I can dress this up by pointing to details that reinforce this prejudice - the proposal to charge for appealing against DWP decisions that seems to have been floated because too many of the appeals were successful, etc, but I can admit that it is essentially a prejudice that it would take a lot of contrary evidence to overcome.
I don't feel ashamed of holding this prejudice, and it's not one that is directed uniquely at Tories - the New Labour record on welfare reform is little different in my opinion according to my prejudices - and I feel that my prejudice is justified in the light of the information available to me.
The point I am making is that if I enter into a debate about IDS's welfare reforms with you, we are mostly going to be talking indirectly about our respective prejudices, rather than about the abstract policy detail.
Surely, here more than anywhere, we should be able to rise above our political prejudices? If I'm betting on politics, I'd be a fool to let my base anti-LD contempt, my irrational distrust of Labourites or my unconscious snobbery towards UKIP cloud my judgement.
I take your point about cognitive shortcutting, and I accept that we often will see what we want to see and fail to hear what we do not want to hear. However, I think we can discuss policy issues without suggesting the other side cannot see the reality around them; our differences are around dealing with that reality, priorities and policies.
Ed is certainly crap. Labour generally is listless. The economy is improving. So why on earth aren't the Tories clear favourites to win the GE outright next year? They have everything in their favour, surely.
Interestingly I had a leaflet through the door the other day from Catherine Bearder who is LD MEP in the SE. It was mainly talking about the threat to jobs from leaving the EU
Photos of Bearder - 1 Photos of Nick Clegg - 0 Mentions of Nick Clegg - 0 (Surely she would have wanted to mention his big speech 10 miles up the road!)
Out of the 4 leaflets I've had through the door the only one with a photo of Clegg is the UKIP one!
With a pleasing symmetry, the Lib Dem leaflet that I got in central London had a picture of Nigel Farage on it prominently.
Comments
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/12/ed-miliband-uk-backs-policies-but-not-the-man
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27479277
Romanian says what the faux outrage PC lovers refuse to countenance
"...he was right, Romania is not a civilised country... this is not a race issue, I do not think Nigel Farage is racist. I think he's learned something from this influx of Romanians, some of them because are mixed up with gypies... it's just politically incorrect to call them gypies anymore... you can't... we can't even tell them apart. They have bad habits of exploiting their women and children and they are unruly".
Challenged again by Snow, who was clearly seeking a different response, Gordan said: "My argument is not about race, it is about right and wrong. Britain is the most civilised country in the world and if people come here they should be civilised."
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/20/Romanian-agrees-with-farage
It is an incontrovertible fact that IDS has spent a huge amount of time, effort, and his own money in finding out about poverty. Smarmeron was just plain wrong in his prejudiced comment that IDS doesn't know about the reality of poverty, including foodbanks and life on benefits - he knows a hell of a lot, because (to his enormous credit) he has put in the effort to find out.
You are making a completely different point, which is that his solutions may not be the optimal ones. Fair enough, that is quite arguable. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the left would have the courtesy to concentrate on that aspect, rather than on ridiculous personal attacks and claiming that IDS doesn't care, is deliberately targeting the poor and the disabled, etc etc?
The second is meaningless as all one need to do is to run on an electoral slate of redoing it (for whatever reason) and if one wins a majority then it can be done again with unimpeachable democratic credentials, like it or not. The question to my mind is more what would be perceived as reasonable vs unreasonable reason for redoing it in a few years, i.e. to make sure it would not backfire. The critical issue to my mind is whether the Unionists are perceived to have delivered whatever it is that they end up promising in return for a No vote - and that would include the implicit promise by the entire Better Together campaign that a No vote means no change, and especially no deterioration of the current situation.
To take a historical example, the Scots were assured that shipyards would be decimated [this time, more or less accurate to the classical definition] if they voted for devolution in 1979, and yet this happened all the same within the union. Likewise, if they end up outside the EU as a result of voting No ...
There are no grounds for another one before 2045.
1. It has been a tough few years where prices have risen more quickly than wages. It has not been the good times.
2. The Government have failed to achieve some of their key objectives - despite all the austerity that people have experienced the deficit is still gargantuan. Manufacturing has grown more slowly than the economy as a whole. Exports have disappointed.
3. While Labour have not impressed, UKIP have clearly caught the imagination of some of the public. Cameron has attempted to imitate Blair by often campaigning against his base - on gay marriage for example. Unlike Blair, a credible enough party exists for dissatisfied voters in his base to move to. It's a glimpse of what might have been during the Blair years if the Left of Labour had created a more credible alternative than Respect et al.
4. The ties that bind people to the main two parties have broken, and the electorate has fractured as a result. Trade Unionism - the very basis of the Labour party - is still in retreat. The social influence of the Church of England - in many respects the basis of the Conservative Party - continues to decline. Consequently, 2001 was the last election at which either of the two parties achieved 40% of the vote at the general election, whereas in 1970 both Labour and the Conservatives took more than 40% of the vote.
5. The electoral battleground has been greatly tilted against the Conservatives, compared to earlier periods in history. It's interesting that in 2010, the Conservatives took 55.5% of the two-party share of the vote, which compares to 54.9% in 1992, or 54.3% in 1979. If DavidL is right, and the rise of UKIP improves the efficiency of the distribution of the remaining Conservative voters, while the movement of 2010 Lib Dems to Labour decreases the efficiency of the Labour vote, then it is possible that the Conservatives could win a majority on a reduced share of the two-party vote.
However, the marginals polling does not presently support such a prediction.
I'm now of to see my latest Chelsea flower show gold medal exhibit.
The idea that IDS, of all people in the country, doesn't know about the reality of poverty is just ludicrous. What on earth do you think he has been doing for the last decade?
What's the significance of 2045, if I may ask, please?
Sadly, your prejudice means that you believe that anyone who does not see things in the way you do has venal motives.
79 to 14 was 35 years - a generation. 2045 would be early to be honest.
Grrrr, bloody auto correct.
He's taken his personal experience of a very small example of benefit recipients (late-teens/early-20 slackers in Easterhouse) and designed a punitive system that *may* have been suitable for them (lots of basic skills training & compulsory activity to stop them doing very little on a day to day basis) and applied it to the benefit system as a whole, when it clearly is not fit for purpose when applied to, for example, people in late-50s who have worked their whole lives and are now treated like criminals because there are more applicants than vacancies in any field within their reach. This cohort do not benefit from basic skills training or compulsory work activity (i.e. free labour for large corporations and charities) in any way.
Another example is the pathetic attempts to deal with the Housing Benefit budget, where the symptom (high HB spending) has been, sometimes it seems deliberately, mistaken for the cause (lack of housing supply) - this is why I have clients with cerebral palsy and dementia who are genuinely unable to heat their homes because they have to cover the rent short-fall caused by the bedroom tax. I'm sure his Christian morality makes him feel justified in his efforts, but from out here on the frontline all I see is misery and pain caused by his (and other governments) policies, particularly for people with disabilities and health problems.
(I very rarely comment on here, because I never have time to keep up with the discussions that then develop but I just had a spare moment because of a cancellation, so thought I'd chuck my thoughts in...)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa
Edit: and I forgot, thanks for the explanation!
Debt, drugs, housing, modern slavery, family breakdown; all areas that he has personally researched and seen first hand.
Of course, you can disagree with his solutions, and it is clear from BenS that all is not running smoothly, but to dismiss him as divorced from the reality of the situation is simply wrong and, as Richard N observes, indicates prejudice against him purely because he is a Conservative.
"A bit crap but still as progressive as ever"
Labour %: 23
Lib Dem %: 8
UKIP %: 35
Green %: 8
An Independence
from Europe %: 1
I've been gobbing off for months about how labour's decent poll share won;t translate into votes for ed at the ballot box, so I better put my prediction where my mouth is
Contrarian and proud.
I don't think I am dancing on pins though. If I believed that IDS understood the reality of poverty and welfare any opposition that I had to his policies would indeed be based on partisanship and blind prejudice. It's because I do not think he understands the reality that I believe his policies are wrong and potentially very damaging, not because I believe he is a wicked Tory.
Have an interesting guest slot coming up.
Labourite indicates a party affiliation (as does Tory). "PB Tory" is used as an insult without reference to someone's political party
Leftard I've said before is insulting and shouldn't be used. I'd put Gnat in the shouldn't be used category as well, but mainly because it isn't particularly funny.
Ed Miliband pens an article for pb.com
"I'm crap but the GE table is so loaded in my favour I should be able to win anyway ?"
'“I went down to the Commons. Nice cup of coffee; he’s very polite, he’s always very nice. Two things came out of this. The first thing he said was, ‘I’ve got to make cuts because Osborne has continuously reduced the welfare [budget]’ – the welfare money, the money that Iain Duncan Smith gets to run it, therefore, I think he’s found it very difficult to get his Universal Credit at a level which will take people out of poverty, which obviously he’s not going to do now. The second thing was that I tackled him over his promise that locally-run groups like ours would get money directly from government. I said, ‘you’ve promised that, you’ve told me, it’s been in the press’. And, well, he says, ‘it’s your fault’. ‘My fault,’ I say. ‘Yes’, he says, ‘it’s the Labour Party’s fault for leaving the economy in such a mess, we couldn’t do it.’ Although, in fact, the amount of money it would cost is pretty minimal. He hasn’t pursued it; he’s just dropped it. We agreed to differ but at the end I was saying to him, ‘you should resign and outside of being a minister, you should be campaigning for the things you used to say’. And, as I went, he said, ‘perhaps you’re right’.
But did Holman get a sense that Duncan Smith felt any sort of shame for the programme he has carried through?
“I think that he’s got a mixture of feelings. I think he must feel disappointed that he hasn’t been able to tackle poverty and he must feel … ashamed is maybe too strong a word, he’s trying to balance his loyalty to his party with his commitment to the poor. And in my view, they can’t be balanced. You’ve got to come down on the side of the poor.”'
http://tinyurl.com/pzeknr5
Amusingly regarding the Cons campaigning contribution to the Indy campaign, they've said 'We are clearly not sending anyone to Easterhouse'.
Fergie to get a lifetime boondoggle ?
Could be awkward in the event of a Yes vote....
Lab 25.50%
LD 9.30%
UKIP 26.30%
Grn 7%
AIFE 0.70%
I have money on the Conservatives to win most seats.
The print media campaign vs UKIP has been remorseless. How well Farage does on Thurs will give an insight in2 power or otherwise of papers"
twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/468475107665780737
Might be interesting to look at circulations too. Three months before the election, three months after.
Generally speaking, these cognitive shortcuts work pretty well and you can see them on all sides of political debate. However, they do make political debate rather difficult, because it means that the debate is very rarely about the specifics of the issue at hand, but is about people's different cognitive shortcuts, that have been formed over many years of [differing] experience.
In essence I do not trust IDS and I do not trust him because he is a Tory. Now I can dress this up by pointing to details that reinforce this prejudice - the proposal to charge for appealing against DWP decisions that seems to have been floated because too many of the appeals were successful, etc, but I can admit that it is essentially a prejudice that it would take a lot of contrary evidence to overcome.
I don't feel ashamed of holding this prejudice, and it's not one that is directed uniquely at Tories - the New Labour record on welfare reform is little different in my opinion according to my prejudices - and I feel that my prejudice is justified in the light of the information available to me.
The point I am making is that if I enter into a debate about IDS's welfare reforms with you, we are mostly going to be talking indirectly about our respective prejudices, rather than about the abstract policy detail.
This article provides food for thought for all those thinking labour will do well in the euros, and in 2015.
It's called 'reality'. Competing priorities have to be balanced, and the money just isn't there to do everything IDS would like. Making those difficult choices is what good government is about.
But I had UKIP/Lab/Con as my 1,2,3, aound 8% for LD's, 5% for Green and 1 for the Euro thingy group (Whom, I confess, I hadn't even heard of prior to this morning!).
Photos of Bearder - 1
Photos of Nick Clegg - 0
Mentions of Nick Clegg - 0 (Surely she would have wanted to mention his big speech 10 miles up the road!)
Out of the 4 leaflets I've had through the door the only one with a photo of Clegg is the UKIP one!
Mr. 1000, I did not know that. A quick google check suggests it means/meant 'excessive patriotism', which is the exact opposite of Clegg's other "I love EU long time" assertion that not liking the EU was 'unpatriotic'.
The Cunctator was a rather splendid fellow.
Not that it made any discernible difference to the result even in Rochdale - which is an important lesson to remember.
Her: We shouldn't take the bus to school because things come out of it that kills polar bears.
Me: Is that right?
Her: Yes. Can we go in the car?
Note the language problem in schools... Farage said this to O'Brien last week and it was denounced because his kids are bilingual. UKIP haters of all hues rounded up to say it was no problem for English to be a second language
"...take Sarah Everitt. Her complaint is the 14 foreign children in her daughter’s class – some of whom have difficulty with English. The teachers spend more time with these children than the rest,"
http://www.southampton.gov.uk/council-partners/ElectoralServices/results/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/southamptonitchen/
(The seat borders Eastleigh)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Hampshire
Mr. Eagles, I trust there will be at least one reference to classical history?
I take your point about cognitive shortcutting, and I accept that we often will see what we want to see and fail to hear what we do not want to hear. However, I think we can discuss policy issues without suggesting the other side cannot see the reality around them; our differences are around dealing with that reality, priorities and policies.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLt0myO8XsA
or the inevitable parody
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2k3LoM0AI
http://order-order.com/2014/05/20/labour-silent-over-councillors-holocaust-tweet/
Impressively ill considered.