Scottish independence referendum by phone: 'Even yes voters were polite' - Campaign Bites: an evening of Blether Together telephone canvassing with pro-union volunteers from Helensburgh
... "The yes campaign are everywhere and if we don't get out there then people will think they won't bother voting because we've lost already."
"The people I've spoken to tonight were overwhelmingly no, but even the yes voters were polite. People regularly say that they are fed up with the SNP scare-mongering; they are seen as negative now."
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life as we know it' article back in 2008.
Scottish independence referendum by phone: 'Even yes voters were polite' - Campaign Bites: an evening of Blether Together telephone canvassing with pro-union volunteers from Helensburgh
... "The yes campaign are everywhere and if we don't get out there then people will think they won't bother voting because we've lost already."
"The people I've spoken to tonight were overwhelmingly no, but even the yes voters were polite. People regularly say that they are fed up with the SNP scare-mongering; they are seen as negative now."
I can selectively quote too.
SNP's Project Feart following the failure of Project Fib.
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life as we know it' article back in 2008.
I do wonder if UKIP are paying him.
Agent D'Ancona works tirelessly for the cause.
It's a shame that good men like you can't see that you're now working for an organisation actuated by xenophobia.
I shall make sure that I cast a vote to dilute the interests of the Neanderthals. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned by the Europhobia. Britain's relations with the EU are important, but secondary. But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
A former archbishop of Canterbury has lambasted the "marketisation of politics" in Britain, blaming US Presidential-style televised debates and analysis driven by opinion polls as factors in making Britons "worse people".
Writing in the New Statesman, Rowan Williams, who is a book reviewer for the magazine, cited these two political strands as the reason why society has become increasingly "mistrustful" and easily swayed by "populist manipulation"......
....Opinion polls have become similarly ubiquitous in the UK, with parties using daily polling to get a better handle on public reaction.
In confessing this I may risk coming across as a bit slow, but I do not quite follow what he is saying at all. I am informed Dr Williams is an eloquent and intelligent man, but the quotes of his piece just looks like flowery words thrown together to little purpose to me. Perhaps if fully rested it would look more meaningful to me? The assumption that presdential style debates and a high frequency of opinion polling making us worse people and eroding our public health, appears at first glance as having been so self evident to the good Doctor that it does not require further explanation in his piece.
A plethora of opinion polling can be irritating and a relentless focus on making policy qwith one eye on them might have worries, but why their presence and the existence of presidential style debates signifies our society is going to crap, in essence, is unclear to me.
I did wonder on this bit though:
"The paradox Marquand might have flagged up even more clearly is that we are an increasingly mistrustful society (for the pretty obvious reason that we lack robust social bonds and tangible commitments to the common good) and yet, at the same time, an increasingly credulous society, apparently vulnerable to being swayed by various forms of populist manipulation.
if it is ok for our credulous society to be vulnerable to being swayed by other forms of manipulation, so long as it is not populist.
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life as we know it' article back in 2008.
I do wonder if UKIP are paying him.
Agent D'Ancona works tirelessly for the cause.
It's a shame that good men like you can't see that you're now working for an organisation actuated by xenophobia.
I shall make sure that I cast a vote to dilute the interests of the Neanderthals. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned by the Europhobia. Britain's relations with the EU are important, but secondary. But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
As the grandson of good decent hard-working immigrants, the best way you can honour them is to vote conservative.
Can someone explain to me why you get three votes in the local council elections?
Not everyone does. I presume you live in an area with multiple member constituencies, permitting you to vote for any combination of party or independent candidates you wish, rather than a single party list.
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life as we know it' article back in 2008.
I do wonder if UKIP are paying him.
Agent D'Ancona works tirelessly for the cause.
It's a shame that good men like you can't see that you're now working for an organisation actuated by xenophobia.
I shall make sure that I cast a vote to dilute the interests of the Neanderthals. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned by the Europhobia. Britain's relations with the EU are important, but secondary. But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
As the grandson of good decent hard-working immigrants, the best way you can honour them is to vote conservative.
Or the party of in, the Lib Dems.
It will be Green or Lib Dems. I shall make my mind up in the privacy of the polling booth. Since my other half can't vote, his wishes will weigh on my mind also.
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life as we know it' article back in 2008.
I do wonder if UKIP are paying him.
Well Matthew was in the SDP with Polly back in the day, so I'm not surprised there's similarity.
Difference is though, Polly has always spoken for nobody other than herself, where-as I do believe D'Ancna s intimately involved with Cameron and Osborne (he knew we was going to war with Libya before anybody for instance) So when he speaks you assume he is saying what Cameron and Osborne want his to say...
But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
Listening to O'Flynn the other night, I thought it was UKIP policy to have MORE decent hard working immigrants, at the expense of fewer ones of poorer character and education...???
And that is the crux of this problem, isn't it? the 'rough with the smooth' nature of immigration right now?
To accept the smooth of the Indian doctor, Chinese programmer, Portuguese architect, Polish builder, we must accept the rough of the benefit cheat, gangmaster, people trafficker, terrorist, rapist and health tourist.
UKIP really pushing hard in the SW. I'd already received a leaflet and a poster from them, and today two different postcard sized leaflets and an entire newspaper-esque 'UKIP news' with 4 A4 pages of content.
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life 'mas we know it' article back in 2008.
I do wonder if UKIP are paying him.
Agent D'Ancona works tirelessly for the cause.
It's a shame that good men like you can't see that you're now working for an organisation actuated by xenophobia.
I shall make sure that I cast a vote to dilute the interests of the Neanderthals. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned by the Europhobia. Britain's relations with the EU are important, but secondary. But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
Good point. I have been seriously thinking of sitting this one out. But I think you may have just persuaded me to do my civic ...
Perhaps more evidence of good luck for UKIP: there was heavy rain today in East Anglia, but tomorrow it's forecast to be fine and sunny. Since this will probably be the party's best region they wouldn't have wanted bad weather there tomorrow.
Given the Good Lord's response to gay marriage it would make sense to bless a pro-Ukip region like East Anglia with good weather tomorrow.
I really am interested in turnout figures on this one. Whatever one thinks of UKIP, if their rise manages either through support or opposition to them, to lead to an increase in turnout of some significance, then that is good news indeed.
I'll be attempting to keep tabs on the popular vote on election night as council results are declared. But it may be difficult if reliable results aren't published on the official websites. Relying on Twitter for accurate results is always a bit risky.
Friday and Saturday would be enough, no, for YouGov to poll enough people and ask how they actually voted? (I know nothing of electoral law on this point, much less EU law to avoid referential voting)
As I replied previously:
The publication of exit polls in European parliamentary elections is governed by regulation 30 of the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004 SI 2004/293. No person may publish an exit poll before the close of the poll. The close of poll means, in the case of a general election of MEPs, the close of the polling in the Member State whose electors are the last to vote in the election. A person who contravenes the prohibition is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.
A former archbishop of Canterbury has lambasted the "marketisation of politics" in Britain, blaming US Presidential-style televised debates and analysis driven by opinion polls as factors in making Britons "worse people".
Writing in the New Statesman, Rowan Williams, who is a book reviewer for the magazine, cited these two political strands as the reason why society has become increasingly "mistrustful" and easily swayed by "populist manipulation"......
....Opinion polls have become similarly ubiquitous in the UK, with parties using daily polling to get a better handle on public reaction.
In confessing this I may risk coming across as a bit slow, but I do not quite follow what he is saying at all. I am informed Dr Williams is an eloquent and intelligent man, but the quotes of his piece just looks like flowery words thrown together to little purpose to me. Perhaps if fully rested it would look more meaningful to me? The assumption that presdential style debates and a high frequency of opinion polling making us worse people and eroding our public health, appears at first glance as having been so self evident to the good Doctor that it does not require further explanation in his piece.
A plethora of opinion polling can be irritating and a relentless focus on making policy qwith one eye on them might have worries, but why their presence and the existence of presidential style debates signifies our society is going to crap, in essence, is unclear to me.
I did wonder on this bit though:
"The paradox Marquand might have flagged up even more clearly is that we are an increasingly mistrustful society (for the pretty obvious reason that we lack robust social bonds and tangible commitments to the common good) and yet, at the same time, an increasingly credulous society, apparently vulnerable to being swayed by various forms of populist manipulation.
if it is ok for our credulous society to be vulnerable to being swayed by other forms of manipulation, so long as it is not populist.
I think his argument is that politicians are focussing/basing their policies on whether they are popular or not, not if they are the right thing to do.
And people are reading too much into the polls.
I mean, we're all guilty of using sub MOE changes in the YouGov to say that policy is good or bad.
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life as we know it' article back in 2008.
I do wonder if UKIP are paying him.
Agent D'Ancona works tirelessly for the cause.
It's a shame that good men like you can't see that you're now working for an organisation actuated by xenophobia.
I shall make sure that I cast a vote to dilute the interests of the Neanderthals. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned by the Europhobia. Britain's relations with the EU are important, but secondary. But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
As the grandson of good decent hard-working immigrants, the best way you can honour them is to vote conservative.
Or the party of in, the Lib Dems.
It will be Green or Lib Dems. I shall make my mind up in the privacy of the polling booth. Since my other half can't vote, his wishes will weigh on my mind also.
If we assume that anyone who would vote UKIP in the GE will be voting UKIP tomorrow, and assuming that turnout in the GE will be approx double the Euro turnout, we can get a ceiling of UKIP GE vote share by dividing their Euro vote by 2. So, 30% in the Euros equates to a max of 15% in the GE. If a third of there Euro voters switch back to another party for the GE, make that 10%. OK, so that's my prediction - 10% for UKIP in the GE.
But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
Listening to O'Flynn the other night, I thought it was UKIP policy to have MORE decent hard working immigrants, at the expense of fewer ones of poorer character and education...???
And that is the crux of this problem, isn't it? the 'rough with the smooth' nature of immigration right now?
To accept the smooth of the Indian doctor, Chinese programmer, Portuguese architect, Polish builder, we must accept the rough of the benefit cheat, gangmaster, people trafficker, terrorist, rapist and health tourist.
Why the f8ck should we?
Do you really think that the thrust of UKIP's campaign has revolved around having more immigrants?
A former archbishop of Canterbury has lambasted the "marketisation of politics" in Britain, blaming US Presidential-style televised debates and analysis driven by opinion polls as factors in making Britons "worse people".
Writing in the New Statesman, Rowan Williams, who is a book reviewer for the magazine, cited these two political strands as the reason why society has become increasingly "mistrustful" and easily swayed by "populist manipulation"......
....Opinion polls have become similarly ubiquitous in the UK, with parties using daily polling to get a better handle on public reaction.
In confessing this I may risk coming across as a bit slow, but I do not quite follow what he is saying at all. I am informed Dr Williams is an eloquent and intelligent man, but the quotes of his piece just looks like flowery words thrown together to little purpose to me. Perhaps if fully rested it would look more meaningful to me? The assumption that presdential style debates and a high frequency of opinion polling making us worse people and eroding our public health, appears at first glance as having been so self evident to the good Doctor that it does not require further explanation in his piece.
A plethora of opinion polling can be irritating and a relentless focus on making policy qwith one eye on them might have worries, but why their presence and the existence of presidential style debates signifies our society is going to crap, in essence, is unclear to me.
I did wonder on this bit though:
"The paradox Marquand might have flagged up even more clearly is that we are an increasingly mistrustful society (for the pretty obvious reason that we lack robust social bonds and tangible commitments to the common good) and yet, at the same time, an increasingly credulous society, apparently vulnerable to being swayed by various forms of populist manipulation.
if it is ok for our credulous society to be vulnerable to being swayed by other forms of manipulation, so long as it is not populist.
I think his argument is that politicians are focussing/basing their policies on whether they are popular or not, not if they are the right thing to do.
And people are reading too much into the polls.
I mean, we're all guilty of using sub MOE changes in the YouGov to say that policy is good or bad.
I remember once being relieved that the Hattie PIE chucking had caused no harm when Labour's YouGov score went up by 1pt.
A former archbishop of Canterbury has lambasted the "marketisation of politics" in Britain, blaming US Presidential-style televised debates and analysis driven by opinion polls as factors in making Britons "worse people".
Writing in the New Statesman, Rowan Williams, who is a book reviewer for the magazine, cited these two political strands as the reason why society has become increasingly "mistrustful" and easily swayed by "populist manipulation"......
....Opinion polls have become similarly ubiquitous in the UK, with parties using daily polling to get a better handle on public reaction.
In confessing this I may risk coming across as a bit slow, but I do not quite follow what he is A plethora of opinion polling can be irritating and a relentless focus on making policy qwith one eye on them might have worries, but why their presence and the existence of presidential style debates signifies our society is going to crap, in essence, is unclear to me.
I did wonder on this bit though:
"The paradox Marquand might have flagged up even more clearly is that we are an increasingly mistrustful society (for the pretty obvious reason that we lack robust social bonds and tangible commitments to the common good) and yet, at the same time, an increasingly credulous society, apparently vulnerable to being swayed by various forms of populist manipulation.
if it is ok for our credulous society to be vulnerable to being swayed by other forms of manipulation, so long as it is not populist.
I think his argument is that politicians are focussing/basing their policies on whether they are popular or not, not if they are the right thing to do.
And people are reading too much into the polls.
I just about got that from it, and I can understand thinking we should all do less of it...but he's terming it as us all becoming bad people and the public health of our society being eroded, in such a way as to suggest this is not us becoming slightly worse or our public health being slightly eroded, but an imminent and major moral concern. And that just seems like he's wildly exaggerating and so undermining his point, unless he means it in exactly that overblown way, in which case he needs to elaborate further, because that's absurd.
An internal Liberal Democrat document reveals that the party is braced for a complete wipeout in the European parliamentary elections.
Senior party figures have been briefed to say that a failure to win any seats should be "expected" at this stage in the electoral cycle for a governing party.
The document, the contents of which have been leaked to the Guardian, advises Lib Dem spokespeople about what to say if the party wins between no seats and two seats in Strasbourg.
In that scenario, the document advises party figures to say: "Disappointed with the result but the party remains resolute and this was expected at this point in the electoral cycle."
An internal Liberal Democrat document reveals that the party is braced for a complete wipeout in the European parliamentary elections.
Senior party figures have been briefed to say that a failure to win any seats should be "expected" at this stage in the electoral cycle for a governing party.
The document, the contents of which have been leaked to the Guardian, advises Lib Dem spokespeople about what to say if the party wins between no seats and two seats in Strasbourg.
In that scenario, the document advises party figures to say: "Disappointed with the result but the party remains resolute and this was expected at this point in the electoral cycle."
That's an absurd line, but it was obvious they'd been so briefed, or else they wouldn't have been letting slip for months they thought it possible (later 'likely') that they would return no MEPs. Of course, the need to spin returning any MEPs a success is also unsurprising:
If the party retains two to three MEPs, senior Lib Dems have been advised to say it represents "a good result considering the circumstances", while if it secures three to five MEPs, the document suggests "a very encouraging result … much better than almost everyone predicted".
Both of which are technically true, not that it makes facing a wipeout less humiliating
At this rate, they'll say that losing half their MPs is the sign of a governing party as well.
Where are they most likely to have a chance to retain an MEP anyway? I'd say SW but I presume it will be 3 Con and 3 UKIP down here.
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life as we know it' article back in 2008.
I do wonder if UKIP are paying him.
Agent D'Ancona works tirelessly for the cause.
It's a shame that good men like you can't see that you're now working for an organisation actuated by xenophobia.
I shall make sure that I cast a vote to dilute the interests of the Neanderthals. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned by the Europhobia. Britain's relations with the EU are important, but secondary. But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
That's a thought-provoking post.
Insofar as UKIP is xenophobic, it's the xenophobia of Flanders and Swann, or Dad's Army, not the xenophobia of blood and soil nationalism. That is, it is pretty harmless. But, people like D'Ancona don't distinguish between the two.
An internal Liberal Democrat document reveals that the party is braced for a complete wipeout in the European parliamentary elections.
Senior party figures have been briefed to say that a failure to win any seats should be "expected" at this stage in the electoral cycle for a governing party.
The document, the contents of which have been leaked to the Guardian, advises Lib Dem spokespeople about what to say if the party wins between no seats and two seats in Strasbourg.
In that scenario, the document advises party figures to say: "Disappointed with the result but the party remains resolute and this was expected at this point in the electoral cycle."
That's an absurd line, but it was obvious they'd been so briefed, or else they wouldn't have been letting slip for months they thought it possible (later 'likely') that they would return no MEPs. Of course, the need to spin returning any MEPs a success is also unsurprising:
If the party retains two to three MEPs, senior Lib Dems have been advised to say it represents "a good result considering the circumstances", while if it secures three to five MEPs, the document suggests "a very encouraging result … much better than almost everyone predicted".
Both of which are technically true, not that it makes facing a wipeout less humiliating
At this rate, they'll say that losing half their MPs is the sign of a governing party as well.
Where are they most likely to have a chance to retain an MEP anyway? I'd say SW but I presume it will be 3 Con and 3 UKIP down here.
I think the lib dems will get 3 or maybe 4 seats . Their polling is not that bad!! They can hardly fail to win a seat at least in the south East and London
If you haven't made up your mind by now, I imagine your result will be similar to mine, a dead heat between three different European political groups, and three different UK parties as best choice depending on which party choice predictor I was using.
Do you really think that the thrust of UKIP's campaign has revolved around having more immigrants?
No the thrust of UKIP's campaign as I understand it is to have fewer, better quality immigrants.
But its not to exclude people on the basis of race, creed or nation. It's to exclude them coming on the basis of poor qualifications and dubious character.
An internal Liberal Democrat document reveals that the party is braced for a complete wipeout in the European parliamentary elections.
Senior party figures have been briefed to say that a failure to win any seats should be "expected" at this stage in the electoral cycle for a governing party.
The document, the contents of which have been leaked to the Guardian, advises Lib Dem spokespeople about what to say if the party wins between no seats and two seats in Strasbourg.
In that scenario, the document advises party figures to say: "Disappointed with the result but the party remains resolute and this was expected at this point in the electoral cycle."
That's an absurd line, but it was obvious they'd been so briefed, or else they wouldn't have been letting slip for months they thought it possible (later 'likely') that they would return no MEPs. Of course, the need to spin returning any MEPs a success is also unsurprising:
If the party retains two to three MEPs, senior Lib Dems have been advised to say it represents "a good result considering the circumstances", while if it secures three to five MEPs, the document suggests "a very encouraging result … much better than almost everyone predicted".
Both of which are technically true, not that it makes facing a wipeout less humiliating
At this rate, they'll say that losing half their MPs is the sign of a governing party as well.
Where are they most likely to have a chance to retain an MEP anyway? I'd say SW but I presume it will be 3 Con and 3 UKIP down here.
I think the lib dems will get 3 or maybe 4 seats . Their polling is not that bad!! They can hardly fail to win a seat at least in the south East and London
If the LD's votes are similar to the Greens, then they might only get 2 MEPs.
An internal Liberal Democrat document reveals that the party is braced for a complete wipeout in the European parliamentary elections.
Senior party figures have been briefed to say that a failure to win any seats should be "expected" at this stage in the electoral cycle for a governing party.
The document, the contents of which have been leaked to the Guardian, advises Lib Dem spokespeople about what to say if the party wins between no seats and two seats in Strasbourg.
In that scenario, the document advises party figures to say: "Disappointed with the result but the party remains resolute and this was expected at this point in the electoral cycle."
That's an absurd line, but it was obvious they'd been so briefed, or else they wouldn't have been letting slip for months they thought it possible (later 'likely') that they would return no MEPs. Of course, the need to spin returning any MEPs a success is also unsurprising:
If the party retains two to three MEPs, senior Lib Dems have been advised to say it represents "a good result considering the circumstances", while if it secures three to five MEPs, the document suggests "a very encouraging result … much better than almost everyone predicted".
Both of which are technically true, not that it makes facing a wipeout less humiliating
At this rate, they'll say that losing half their MPs is the sign of a governing party as well.
Where are they most likely to have a chance to retain an MEP anyway? I'd say SW but I presume it will be 3 Con and 3 UKIP down here.
I think the lib dems will get 3 or maybe 4 seats . Their polling is not that bad!! They can hardly fail to win a seat at least in the south East and London
If the LD's votes are similar to the Greens, then they might only get 2 MEPs.
Possibly but I think they cannot go lower than one . If they get two ,I think they will get three . I think they will also outperform at the ballot box as people will suddenly remember they exist when seen on the ballot paper and as they are the most extreme of a point of view about Europe (ie they love it the most) will surely get enough euro lovers to avoid the dreaded nil points
An internal Liberal Democrat document reveals that the party is braced for a complete wipeout in the European parliamentary elections.
Senior party figures have been briefed to say that a failure to win any seats should be "expected" at this stage in the electoral cycle for a governing party.
The document, the contents of which have been leaked to the Guardian, advises Lib Dem spokespeople about what to say if the party wins between no seats and two seats in Strasbourg.
In that scenario, the document advises party figures to say: "Disappointed with the result but the party remains resolute and this was expected at this point in the electoral cycle."
That's an absurd line, but it was obvious they'd been so briefed, or else they wouldn't have been letting slip for months they thought it possible (later 'likely') that they would return no MEPs. Of course, the need to spin returning any MEPs a success is also unsurprising:
If the party retains two to three MEPs, senior Lib Dems have been advised to say it represents "a good result considering the circumstances", while if it secures three to five MEPs, the document suggests "a very encouraging result … much better than almost everyone predicted".
Both of which are technically true, not that it makes facing a wipeout less humiliating
At this rate, they'll say that losing half their MPs is the sign of a governing party as well.
Where are they most likely to have a chance to retain an MEP anyway? I'd say SW but I presume it will be 3 Con and 3 UKIP down here.
I think the lib dems will get 3 or maybe 4 seats . Their polling is not that bad!! They can hardly fail to win a seat at least in the south East and London
I don't see how they can fail to win a seat in the South East, or South West.
Do you really think that the thrust of UKIP's campaign has revolved around having more immigrants?
No the thrust of UKIP's campaign as I understand it is to have fewer, better quality immigrants.
But its not to exclude people on the basis of race, creed or nation. It's to exclude them coming on the basis of poor qualifications and dubious character.
Exactly.
The current policy espoused by the Tories - and supported by Labour and the Lib Dems - is inherently racist as it clearly discriminates against immigrants from outside Europe irrespective of their skills or qualifications and in favour of immigrants from Europe even if they have nothing positive to offer the country.
Immigration controls are not racist. Selective immigration controls that exclude people purely on the basis of where they happen to be emigrating from are racist.
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life as we know it' article back in 2008.
I do wonder if UKIP are paying him.
Agent D'Ancona works tirelessly for the cause.
It's a shame that good men like you can't see that you're now working for an organisation actuated by xenophobia.
I shall make sure that I cast a vote to dilute the interests of the Neanderthals. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned by the Europhobia. Britain's relations with the EU are important, but secondary. But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
That's a thought-provoking post.
Insofar as UKIP is xenophobic, it's the xenophobia of Flanders and Swann, or Dad's Army, not the xenophobia of blood and soil nationalism. That is, it is pretty harmless. But, people like D'Ancona don't distinguish between the two.
So, I stand against the D'Anconas of this world.
You may think that but you, and in diminishing degrees, other UKIP supporters who post here are fairly reasonable and do not resort to referring to the indigenous Britons. For indigenous of course read white. If one reads The Telegraph comment elections a cold shower is required. Thick, racist and white. Another view of UKIP.
Talking of value, thanks to Pulpstar's tip I backed the Tories to win on GE seats but lose on votes, at 100-1 this morning. I took all that was available from Paddy - the princely sum of £4.07.
I took the view that even the pollster known as ComedyResults had a greater than one in a hundred chance of being right.
Do you really think that the thrust of UKIP's campaign has revolved around having more immigrants?
No the thrust of UKIP's campaign as I understand it is to have fewer, better quality immigrants.
But its not to exclude people on the basis of race, creed or nation. It's to exclude them coming on the basis of poor qualifications and dubious character.
What rot. It demonises Romanians and Bulgarians. For now it studiously avoids commenting on Ghanaians and Nigerians for no other reason than that it is electorally complicated (ie exposes their real rationale). The real thrust is clear for anyone with eyes to see.
UKIP is the party of pulling up the drawbridge. Its less sophisticated supporters understand that a lot better than its intellectual fellow-travellers.
Talking of value, thanks to Pulpstar's tip I backed the Tories to win on GE seats but lose on votes, at 100-1 this morning. I took all that was available from Paddy - the princely sum of £4.07.
I took the view that even the pollster known as ComedyResults had a greater than one in a hundred chance of being right.
Tom Newton Dunn@tnewtondunn·42 secs At 10pm, we are publishing @YouGov's bombshell projection of who will win tomorrow's euro elections, plus MEPs breakdown. Standby.
Tim Montgomerie "For the first time in my life I thought about not voting Conservative tomorrow"
Tomorrow, for the first national election in UK history, the Tories will be outpolled by a party to their right. The only other time I think that has happened was Canada when the Reform Party outpolled the Progressive Tories. However, the Tories will not be alone, in France the UMP set to be outpolled by the FN + Dutch CDA/VVD by PVV
I see Matthew D'Ancona is working his magic in the Evening Standard again tonight. It's his equivalent of the famous Guardian 'Boris will end life as we know it' article back in 2008.
I do wonder if UKIP are paying him.
Agent D'Ancona works tirelessly for the cause.
It's a shame that good men like you can't see that you're now working for an organisation actuated by xenophobia.
I shall make sure that I cast a vote to dilute the interests of the Neanderthals. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned by the Europhobia. Britain's relations with the EU are important, but secondary. But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
That's a thought-provoking post.
Insofar as UKIP is xenophobic, it's the xenophobia of Flanders and Swann, or Dad's Army, not the xenophobia of blood and soil nationalism. That is, it is pretty harmless. But, people like D'Ancona don't distinguish between the two.
So, I stand against the D'Anconas of this world.
You may think that but you, and in diminishing degrees, other UKIP supporters who post here are fairly reasonable and do not resort to referring to the indigenous Britons. For indigenous of course read white. If one reads The Telegraph comment elections a cold shower is required. Thick, racist and white. Another view of UKIP.
But the internet attracts people who rant and rave. Comment is Free is full of equally vile remarks. Christian websites attract Nutters. The Atheist blogosphere attracts fanatics. But, in total, you're probably not looking at more than 5% of the population doing the ranting and raving.
The BBC tweet story is extraordinary, not because of what @journomummy said, but because she clearly felt it was perfectly acceptable to say it.
The metropolitan liberal-left really do believe all good people naturally agree with them; consequently, and by definition, anyone who disagrees or objects to their liberal-left views is a moron or a racist and can be safely ignored.
It's a repulsive mindset. She should be summarily sacked. Stuff like this is going to kill the BBC.
Obviously you are going way over the top again, over projecting that she believes that anyone who doesn't attend dinner parties with you and your mates in NW1 is a racist.
Yet you do have a nut of a point. My staff openly express their distaste for Ukip, in the office, for all to hear. That said Ukip are widely hated in most parts of normal London* so I guess they are pretty safe.
Do you really think that the thrust of UKIP's campaign has revolved around having more immigrants?
No the thrust of UKIP's campaign as I understand it is to have fewer, better quality immigrants.
But its not to exclude people on the basis of race, creed or nation. It's to exclude them coming on the basis of poor qualifications and dubious character.
What rot. It demonises Romanians and Bulgarians. For now it studiously avoids commenting on Ghanaians and Nigerians for no other reason than that it is electorally complicated (ie exposes their real rationale). The real thrust is clear for anyone with eyes to see.
UKIP is the party of pulling up the drawbridge. Its less sophisticated supporters understand that a lot better than its intellectual fellow-travellers.
Utter rubbish Antifrank,. And of course driven by fanatical Europhilia.
UKIP have made it clear that one of the benefits of a proper immigration policy is that we could have more skilled and highly educated immigrants from the rest of the world if we did not have uncontrolled immigration from the EU.
I am not a lib dem supporter or indeed a massive EU fan but I think they deserve to do well tomorrow (or at least avoid humiliation). Nick Clegg at least took on Farage and whilst the tories have at least laid out a plan to deal with Europe in the next few years its Labour who deserve to do rubbish tomorrow as they have seemingly refused to talk about the election at all!
Farage admits to being "frazzled" and is going to take a back seat.Good for him because he looks like a heart attack waiting to happen but can Ukip cope with the change if he does?That could determine Ukip's longer-term success or other-wise.
The metropolitan liberal-left really do believe all good people naturally agree with them; consequently, and by definition, anyone who disagrees or objects to their liberal-left views is a moron or a racist and can be safely ignored.
It's worthy of note given she is a senior BBC person, but are you really saying the non-metropolitan non-liberal right do not similarly believe that all good people naturally agree with them and that, consequently, and by definition, anyone who disagrees or objects to their non-liberal right views is a moron and can be safely ignored?* I do not find that credible, particularly given the vitriol that is unleashed at any dissenting view from that quarter.
That's a tribal political thing, nothing to do with left-right bullcrap, which merely informs the specificity of the autmomatic dismissal and conflation of their opponents with morons/racists/whatever.
*I left out racist as it does seem true that the right are less likely to accuse opponents automatically of racism, as that is something that it is true is far more often lumped on the right than the opposite. I'm not sure what the equivalent accusation against the left would be.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 5 mins At 10pm, we are publishing @YouGov's bombshell projection of who will win tomorrow's euro elections, plus MEPs breakdown. Standby
Farage admits to being "frazzled" and is going to take a back seat.Good for him because he looks like a heart attack waiting to happen but can Ukip cope with the change if he does?That could determine Ukip's longer-term success or other-wise.
I am not a fan of Farage as leader of UKIP so personally I think it is a great move for him to step back. And I now think there are enough good performers behind him that they will have no problem finding someone to take over.
Do you really think that the thrust of UKIP's campaign has revolved around having more immigrants?
No the thrust of UKIP's campaign as I understand it is to have fewer, better quality immigrants.
But its not to exclude people on the basis of race, creed or nation. It's to exclude them coming on the basis of poor qualifications and dubious character.
What rot. It demonises Romanians and Bulgarians. For now it studiously avoids commenting on Ghanaians and Nigerians for no other reason than that it is electorally complicated (ie exposes their real rationale). The real thrust is clear for anyone with eyes to see.
UKIP is the party of pulling up the drawbridge. Its less sophisticated supporters understand that a lot better than its intellectual fellow-travellers.
Utter rubbish Antifrank,. And of course driven by fanatical Europhilia.
UKIP have made it clear that one of the benefits of a proper immigration policy is that we could have more skilled and highly educated immigrants from the rest of the world if we did not have uncontrolled immigration from the EU.
It is obvious to all except the Europhile bigots.
Yes, you can see from all the UKIP candidates just how unbigoted UKIP is. What a fool believes.
Mr. Johnno, the only results that count as a bombshell, that are plausible, would be a blue win or the yellows getting nothing. Both are unlikely, but not impossible.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 5 mins At 10pm, we are publishing @YouGov's bombshell projection of who will win tomorrow's euro elections, plus MEPs breakdown. Standby
Not really a bombshell, they have UKIP ahead in their Euro poll. At 11PM they are going to let us know the bombshell that the earth is not flat.
Louise Mensch@LouiseMensch·1 min In advance of the EU vote I want to point out that weeks ago I said the story would be the LD collapse, not the UKIP one-trick pony.
Looks like the Sun YouGov is going to support the story of no seats for the LibDems...
I am not a lib dem supporter or indeed a massive EU fan but I think they deserve to do well tomorrow (or at least avoid humiliation). Nick Clegg at least took on Farage and whilst the tories have at least laid out a plan to deal with Europe in the next few years its Labour who deserve to do rubbish tomorrow as they have seemingly refused to talk about the election at all!
The LDs do not deserve the level of hatred they receive, much of which is condemning them for behaviours which are political but not partisan, that is to say not something they alone are guilty of doing. It is unfortunate for them that that feeling has become sustained and entrenched because even if it is to eventually be reversed to some degree, which is becomign more and more doubtful the more stable their terrible polling at all levels of elections look, it will not happen with these elections because their position on the EU was never popular to begin with, and having taken on the other side in the debate was a worthy attempt, but appears to have had no effect, because of the ingrained hatred of them.
Even the LDs best projections for tomorrow are for a humiliation, so I don't think it can be avoided however.
Do you really think that the thrust of UKIP's campaign has revolved around having more immigrants?
No the thrust of UKIP's campaign as I understand it is to have fewer, better quality immigrants.
But its not to exclude people on the basis of race, creed or nation. It's to exclude them coming on the basis of poor qualifications and dubious character.
What rot. It demonises Romanians and Bulgarians. For now it studiously avoids commenting on Ghanaians and Nigerians for no other reason than that it is electorally complicated (ie exposes their real rationale). The real thrust is clear for anyone with eyes to see.
UKIP is the party of pulling up the drawbridge. Its less sophisticated supporters understand that a lot better than its intellectual fellow-travellers.
Utter rubbish Antifrank,. And of course driven by fanatical Europhilia.
UKIP have made it clear that one of the benefits of a proper immigration policy is that we could have more skilled and highly educated immigrants from the rest of the world if we did not have uncontrolled immigration from the EU.
It is obvious to all except the Europhile bigots.
Yes, you can see from all the UKIP candidates just how unbigoted UKIP is. What a fool believes.
You can see the same from many of the Tory and Labour candidates as well. Even the Lib Dems are not immune.
And of course you fail to answer the basic point that a immigration system that favours Europeans over Chinese, Africans or Indians is inherently racist.
I am somewhat puzzled that your average court case for a legal aid funded defendant is over in a flash, but that the same charge defended by a well paid lawyer takes far more time on average, with actual questions being asked of the prosecution witnesses. 14 grams of cannabis being drug dealing, over twice that weight of cocaine being "personal"
Sorry I have been travelling home and then having my tea.
14g of cannabis is certainly at the top end for personal use. The maximum "personal" quantity would be about 1/4 of an ounce which is just over 7 grams. Possession of half an ounce would normally imply some sort of dealing.
28g of cocaine is an enormous quantity. IANAE but the street value is something like £20 a gram (more on the police/court scale) making that at least £560 worth. Anyone caught with this quantity would and should almost certainly be charged with being concerned in the supply.
Sam Coates Times @SamCoatesTimes · 2 mins YouGov European Election poll: Ukip 27%, Labour 26%, Tories 22%, Greens 10%, LD 9% << a huge (6,000) sample used for this poll
I am not a lib dem supporter or indeed a massive EU fan but I think they deserve to do well tomorrow (or at least avoid humiliation). Nick Clegg at least took on Farage and whilst the tories have at least laid out a plan to deal with Europe in the next few years its Labour who deserve to do rubbish tomorrow as they have seemingly refused to talk about the election at all!
The LDs do not deserve the level of hatred they receive, much of which is condemning them for behaviours which are political but not partisan, that is to say not something they alone are guilty of doing. It is unfortunate for them that that feeling has become sustained and entrenched because even if it is to eventually be reversed to some degree, which is becomign more and more doubtful the more stable their terrible polling at all levels of elections look, it will not happen with these elections because their position on the EU was never popular to begin with, and having taken on the other side in the debate was a worthy attempt, but appears to have had no effect, because of the ingrained hatred of them.
Even the LDs best projections for tomorrow are for a humiliation, so I don't think it can be avoided however.
How can you hate lib dems? Only fuddy duddy labour types do imo. A lot of people think they are a bit wet and pathetic but there must be at least 20% of voters who actually are pro Europe enough to give them a vote . I think they will out perform their polling tomorrow .Just look at people who are undecided on here below who think they may still vote for them
The BBC tweet story is extraordinary, not because of what @journomummy said, but because she clearly felt it was perfectly acceptable to say it.
The metropolitan liberal-left really do believe all good people naturally agree with them; consequently, and by definition, anyone who disagrees or objects to their liberal-left views is a moron or a racist and can be safely ignored.
It's a repulsive mindset. She should be summarily sacked. Stuff like this is going to kill the BBC.
Yet you do have a nut of a point. My staff openly express their distaste for Ukip, in the office, for all to hear. That said Ukip are widely hated in most parts of normal London* so I guess they are pretty safe.
I admit to being surprised to hearing the same open distaste for UKIP in my office, here in the much more UKIP friendly SW. I found it a bit awkward, as though I do not intend to vote UKIP I have no real problem with them except their excessive whinging and persecution complex (yes, there is justification for some of it, calm down), and I want them to do well. I am a pretty obviously soft lefty on social matters at least though, so perhaps the person concerned did not feel I could possibly do anything but hate UKIP.
Yet you do have a nut of a point. My staff openly express their distaste for Ukip, in the office, for all to hear. That said Ukip are widely hated in most parts of normal London* so I guess they are pretty safe.
I admit to being surprised to hearing the same open distaste for UKIP in my office, here in the much more UKIP friendly SW. I found it a bit awkward, as though I do not intend to vote UKIP I have no real problem with them except their excessive whinging and persecution complex (yes, there is justification for some of it, calm down), and I want them to do well. I am a pretty obviously soft lefty on social matters at least though, so perhaps the person concerned did not feel I could possibly do anything but hate UKIP.
The metropolitan liberal-left really do believe all good people naturally agree with them; consequently, and by definition, anyone who disagrees or objects to their liberal-left views is a moron or a racist and can be safely ignored.
It's worthy of note given she is a senior BBC person, but are you really saying the non-metropolitan non-liberal right do not similarly believe that all good people naturally agree with them and that, consequently, and by definition, anyone who disagrees or objects to their non-liberal right views is a moron and can be safely ignored?* I do not find that credible, particularly given the vitriol that is unleashed at any dissenting view from that quarter.
That's a tribal political thing, nothing to do with left-right bullcrap, which merely informs the specificity of the autmomatic dismissal and conflation of their opponents with morons/racists/whatever.
*I left out racist as it does seem true that the right are less likely to accuse opponents automatically of racism, as that is something that it is true is far more often lumped on the right than the opposite. I'm not sure what the equivalent accusation against the left would be.
Of course rightwingers believe they are correct. But what you would never see is a BBC Tory (there must be a couple?) joining in some hashtag frenzy on Twitter demeaning a significant leftwing party, a day before an election.
#ImNotVotingSnp #ImNotVotingLibDem followed by a stream of ridiculous jocular abuse
etc etc
It's just inconceivable. Why? Because the right do not have this We Are Inherently and Morally Superior mindset, which infests the Left, and the Left infests and corrupts the BBC, like gangrene.
As I say, stuff like this is going to kill the BBC. Because one day there will be a serious rightwing party in power in the UK and they will want revenge, and the digital revolution will give them the perfect excuse to pension off the license fee for good. And thus the BBC dies.
And who, frankly, gives a toss any more? America is better served in all forms of TV: drama, news, comedy.
Kill the BBC. Get rid.
I do not agree with your conclusion, but I glad we appear to have a consensus that righty's are not immune from the same behaviour, and that it was the fact of her BBC position making being so open about that behaviour that is noteworthy here, even if I think we will have to disagree that the right do not have a mindset of being inherently and morally superior mindset, as opposed to merely being correct.
I will concede the Left play that moral superiority card with greater frequency, which gets on my nerves on occasion.
I am not a lib dem supporter or indeed a massive EU fan but I think they deserve to do well tomorrow (or at least avoid humiliation). Nick Clegg at least took on Farage and whilst the tories have at least laid out a plan to deal with Europe in the next few years its Labour who deserve to do rubbish tomorrow as they have seemingly refused to talk about the election at all!
The LDs do not deserve the level of hatred they receive, much of which is condemning them for behaviours which are political but not partisan, that is to say not something they alone are guilty of doing. It is unfortunate for them that that feeling has become sustained and entrenched because even if it is to eventually be reversed to some degree, which is becomign more and more doubtful the more stable their terrible polling at all levels of elections look, it will not happen with these elections because their position on the EU was never popular to begin with, and having taken on the other side in the debate was a worthy attempt, but appears to have had no effect, because of the ingrained hatred of them.
Even the LDs best projections for tomorrow are for a humiliation, so I don't think it can be avoided however.
How can you hate lib dems? Only fuddy duddy labour types do imo. A lot of people think they are a bit wet and pathetic but there must be at least 20% of voters who actually are pro Europe enough to give them a vote . I think they will out perform their polling tomorrow .Just look at people who are undecided on here below who think they may still vote for them
I certainly don't hate the LDs, I've decided to vote for them tomorrow myself, but while there may be a 'Shy LD' voter effect, and I think the visceral hatred for them is overblown, I do not think it can be said to be restricted merely to 'fuddy duddy labour types'. Those particularly, but you don't languish in the polls so consistently and face complete wipeout in many areas of the country like they have done and are, without genuine hatred behind it from significant numbers.
There is certainly a pro-EU vote to go after, but the fervent pro-EU vote is pretty small, and much of the rest of 'stay in, but not very happy about things' to varying degrees, which is the bit Labour and the Tories will get, not the LDs I think.
The more I think about it the more disappointed I am with Tories on this site and elsewhere condemning Farage's comments. If it were a maverick Tory minister or high profile back bencher it would be being labeled a non-story and there would be accusations of bias by the BBC and news organisations. Scott P would be posting any Tory supporting twits. The difference would be that our UKIP supporters would not be saying anything different than they are now even if a Tory were to be the one making the comment.
The only thing Farage is guilty of is being stupid and naïve enough to think that anything that could even possibly be construed as racist wouldn't be used against him and UKIP in the run up to the election. The question was a clear gotcha and the questioner incredibly hostile, the way that the normally supportive press and level headed posters have sided with a clearly idiotic question and questioner is disgraceful.
I'm not a UKIP supporter and as many of you know I wouldn't go into their camp because I do not believe they do enough to filter out ex BNP and EDL members from their rank and file, and their policies aren't very consistent. However, it is clear to me and many others that Farage is not racist. The useful idiots on the left who say anything like that should not be entertained and right leaning commenters and posters should not be giving them the time of day.
Comments
https://twitter.com/search?q=england u17 team&src=tyah
I can selectively quote too.
I shall make sure that I cast a vote to dilute the interests of the Neanderthals. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned by the Europhobia. Britain's relations with the EU are important, but secondary. But I must cast my vote to make clear that I am not one of the sad people hostile to good decent hard-working immigrants. This is important.
A plethora of opinion polling can be irritating and a relentless focus on making policy qwith one eye on them might have worries, but why their presence and the existence of presidential style debates signifies our society is going to crap, in essence, is unclear to me.
I did wonder on this bit though:
"The paradox Marquand might have flagged up even more clearly is that we are an increasingly mistrustful society (for the pretty obvious reason that we lack robust social bonds and tangible commitments to the common good) and yet, at the same time, an increasingly credulous society, apparently vulnerable to being swayed by various forms of populist manipulation.
if it is ok for our credulous society to be vulnerable to being swayed by other forms of manipulation, so long as it is not populist.
Or the party of in, the Lib Dems.
I don't understand it that well. But I think its 3 councillors who will be elected. So, 3 councillors to vote for - 3 votes. 3 member ward.
Something like that.
Difference is though, Polly has always spoken for nobody other than herself, where-as I do believe D'Ancna s intimately involved with Cameron and Osborne (he knew we was going to war with Libya before anybody for instance) So when he speaks you assume he is saying what Cameron and Osborne want his to say...
Listening to O'Flynn the other night, I thought it was UKIP policy to have MORE decent hard working immigrants, at the expense of fewer ones of poorer character and education...???
And that is the crux of this problem, isn't it? the 'rough with the smooth' nature of immigration right now?
To accept the smooth of the Indian doctor, Chinese programmer, Portuguese architect, Polish builder, we must accept the rough of the benefit cheat, gangmaster, people trafficker, terrorist, rapist and health tourist.
Why the f8ck should we?
The Dutch may just ignore that.
And people are reading too much into the polls.
I mean, we're all guilty of using sub MOE changes in the YouGov to say that policy is good or bad.
Do you really think that the thrust of UKIP's campaign has revolved around having more immigrants?
Surely Ukip will be claiming tomorrow that they are not really English.
Senior party figures have been briefed to say that a failure to win any seats should be "expected" at this stage in the electoral cycle for a governing party.
The document, the contents of which have been leaked to the Guardian, advises Lib Dem spokespeople about what to say if the party wins between no seats and two seats in Strasbourg.
In that scenario, the document advises party figures to say: "Disappointed with the result but the party remains resolute and this was expected at this point in the electoral cycle."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/21/lib-dems-braced-for-wipeout-in-european-poll?CMP=twt_gu
Mr. Briskin, the pre-qualifying piece will be up on Saturday.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/uk-european-election/total-seats-liberal-democrats
http://www.euvox2014.eu/
If the party retains two to three MEPs, senior Lib Dems have been advised to say it represents "a good result considering the circumstances", while if it secures three to five MEPs, the document suggests "a very encouraging result … much better than almost everyone predicted".
Both of which are technically true, not that it makes facing a wipeout less humiliating
At this rate, they'll say that losing half their MPs is the sign of a governing party as well.
Where are they most likely to have a chance to retain an MEP anyway? I'd say SW but I presume it will be 3 Con and 3 UKIP down here.
Insofar as UKIP is xenophobic, it's the xenophobia of Flanders and Swann, or Dad's Army, not the xenophobia of blood and soil nationalism. That is, it is pretty harmless. But, people like D'Ancona don't distinguish between the two.
So, I stand against the D'Anconas of this world.
No the thrust of UKIP's campaign as I understand it is to have fewer, better quality immigrants.
But its not to exclude people on the basis of race, creed or nation. It's to exclude them coming on the basis of poor qualifications and dubious character.
The current policy espoused by the Tories - and supported by Labour and the Lib Dems - is inherently racist as it clearly discriminates against immigrants from outside Europe irrespective of their skills or qualifications and in favour of immigrants from Europe even if they have nothing positive to offer the country.
Immigration controls are not racist. Selective immigration controls that exclude people purely on the basis of where they happen to be emigrating from are racist.
No!! I prefer 11/10 on 3 or more
YouGov/Sun poll for GE2015 - Labour lead up one to three points: CON 33%, LAB 36%, LD 9%, UKIP 13%
YouGov/Sun poll for GE2015 - Labour lead up one to three points: CON 33%, LAB 36%, LD 9%, UKIP 13%
http://order-order.com/2014/05/21/video-eds-battle-of-the-bacon-butty/
I took the view that even the pollster known as ComedyResults had a greater than one in a hundred chance of being right.
UKIP is the party of pulling up the drawbridge. Its less sophisticated supporters understand that a lot better than its intellectual fellow-travellers.
Tom Newton Dunn@tnewtondunn·42 secs
At 10pm, we are publishing @YouGov's bombshell projection of who will win tomorrow's euro elections, plus MEPs breakdown. Standby.
Tomorrow, for the first national election in UK history, the Tories will be outpolled by a party to their right. The only other time I think that has happened was Canada when the Reform Party outpolled the Progressive Tories. However, the Tories will not be alone, in France the UMP set to be outpolled by the FN + Dutch CDA/VVD by PVV
Yet you do have a nut of a point. My staff openly express their distaste for Ukip, in the office, for all to hear. That said Ukip are widely hated in most parts of normal London* so I guess they are pretty safe.
*This area does not include Hornchurch.
UKIP have made it clear that one of the benefits of a proper immigration policy is that we could have more skilled and highly educated immigrants from the rest of the world if we did not have uncontrolled immigration from the EU.
It is obvious to all except the Europhile bigots.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/21/farage-claims-ukip-may-have-common-ground-with-front-national?CMP=twt_fd&commentpage=1
That's a tribal political thing, nothing to do with left-right bullcrap, which merely informs the specificity of the autmomatic dismissal and conflation of their opponents with morons/racists/whatever.
*I left out racist as it does seem true that the right are less likely to accuse opponents automatically of racism, as that is something that it is true is far more often lumped on the right than the opposite. I'm not sure what the equivalent accusation against the left would be.
At 10pm, we are publishing @YouGov's bombshell projection of who will win tomorrow's euro elections, plus MEPs breakdown. Standby
Ukip if you want to, scrapheap's for the Euro.
Lights fuse.....exits
In advance of the EU vote I want to point out that weeks ago I said the story would be the LD collapse, not the UKIP one-trick pony.
Looks like the Sun YouGov is going to support the story of no seats for the LibDems...
EDIT - Or then again not... 3 seats
27/27/23
Even the LDs best projections for tomorrow are for a humiliation, so I don't think it can be avoided however.
And of course you fail to answer the basic point that a immigration system that favours Europeans over Chinese, Africans or Indians is inherently racist.
14g of cannabis is certainly at the top end for personal use. The maximum "personal" quantity would be about 1/4 of an ounce which is just over 7 grams. Possession of half an ounce would normally imply some sort of dealing.
28g of cocaine is an enormous quantity. IANAE but the street value is something like £20 a gram (more on the police/court scale) making that at least £560 worth. Anyone caught with this quantity would and should almost certainly be charged with being concerned in the supply.
27/26/22
YouGov European Election poll: Ukip 27%, Labour 26%, Tories 22%, Greens 10%, LD 9% << a huge (6,000) sample used for this poll
and the lib dems should get at least 3 seats imo with 9%
Yet you do have a nut of a point. My staff openly express their distaste for Ukip, in the office, for all to hear. That said Ukip are widely hated in most parts of normal London* so I guess they are pretty safe.
I admit to being surprised to hearing the same open distaste for UKIP in my office, here in the much more UKIP friendly SW. I found it a bit awkward, as though I do not intend to vote UKIP I have no real problem with them except their excessive whinging and persecution complex (yes, there is justification for some of it, calm down), and I want them to do well. I am a pretty obviously soft lefty on social matters at least though, so perhaps the person concerned did not feel I could possibly do anything but hate UKIP.
I will concede the Left play that moral superiority card with greater frequency, which gets on my nerves on occasion.
There is certainly a pro-EU vote to go after, but the fervent pro-EU vote is pretty small, and much of the rest of 'stay in, but not very happy about things' to varying degrees, which is the bit Labour and the Tories will get, not the LDs I think.