Hannon is spot pon - watching Marr this morning, the single most annoying thing is hearing these people I pay for saying my concerns are legitimate/genuine. Thanks for the vetting guys, will you listen this time?
Is Racist - net (change vs week ago) UKIP: +7 (+6) Farage: -5 (+18)
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
All the signs are that most people in this country are part of the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering, anti-WWC establishment.
Do you seriously expect honest answers from those not conforming to the PC view at a time when Farage was being unprecedently monstered as a racist over the issue by the establishment and mainsteam media?
My guess is that we will find out this evening that UKIP has not received 50% of the votes cast in the EU election last Thursday in what was a secret ballot. Most people that voted will not have voted for UKIP, let alone the majority of all those entitled to vote.
UKIP is a force, no doubt; but most people do not vote for the party. We'd all do well to remember that. They are the third or fourth party in England. Important, significant, noteworthy, but by no means the voice of the majority - or anything close to it.
Indeed, many people will vote for the other parties for a variety of reasons. That does not mean that "most people in this country are part of the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering, anti-WWC establishment" as you put it.
But isn't that what the three main parties represent, according to UKIP and its supporters? What is a vote for them if not a vote for "the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering, anti-WWC establishment"?
I think you'll find punters weren't voting on their LibDem MP's incumbency in the local/euro elections. That comes near year. Apart from that gaping whole in your thinking that was a searing analysis.
Lib Dem MPs are less prone to UNS but then that should also be true for their councillors, for the same reason.
The simple fact is that 8% of the national vote is more-or-less incompatible with retaining a good share of their current seats. There simply aren't enough votes to go around.
As an example, suppose turnout is the same in 2015 as 2010 (it doesn't actually matter but helps for illustrative purposes). That would imply a fall from 6.8m votes to about 2.35m. That could be made up with the following spread:
So even allowing for the Lib Dems losing their deposit in more than two-thirds of GB seats, they'd be doing well to return 30 MPs out of those figures. True, they could bulk out the top end a bit further if they lost even more in the middle but even in this example, there are only a hundred seats between 10% and 25%, and these are the ones currently in the LD's top quartile. Why would they lose votes so catastrophically there but not in seats slightly better - after all, they've probably got quite a decent campaign team in their upper-middle seats, not far short of those in those constituencies they currently hold.
It all sounds wonderfully logical but then voting is next year and not now and if I've learnt anything about LibDem performance and national vote share it is that there is precious little correlation.
2010 - LibDem increase vote share but net loss of seats. 1997 - Lose vote share but double seats. 1983 - 25.4% - 22 seats 2005 - 22% - 62 seats 1974 - 19.3% - 14 seats
Hhhhmmm ....
The disconnect between the current polls and Lib Dem resilience is a thread I've had in my mind for a while but I wanted to see how the May elections panned out first. One thing is sure: they can't both happen. My expectation is that as the election nears, there will be a recovery in LD share as people start thinking more about how they'd vote in relation to their local constituency. If, however, they stay marooned in high single figures, it'll be a bloodbath.
Despite a dreadful vote share, the Lib Dems still managed a reasonable number of wins. Sutton, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NW, Birmingham Yardley, look secure. Personal votes would likely see Simon Hughes, Vince Cable and Lynne Featherstone hold on. Manchester Withington and Brent Central are write-offs.
Hornsey and Wood Green does not look too promising on Thursday's results either.
For the record, the LDs didn't do quite as badly as I'd expected, overall. They're showing promising signs of stickability in a few places such as Sutton. The nadir may have passed, but as GIN1138 observes, we can't reach that conclusion until we see the Euro results.
Is Racist - net (change vs week ago) UKIP: +7 (+6) Farage: -5 (+18)
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
All the signs are that most people in this country are part of the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering, anti-WWC establishment.
Do you seriously expect honest answers from those not conforming to the PC view at a time when Farage was being unprecedently monstered as a racist over the issue by the establishment and mainsteam media?
My guess is that we will find out this evening that UKIP has not received 50% of the votes cast in the EU election last Thursday in what was a secret ballot. Most people that voted will not have voted for UKIP, let alone the majority of all those entitled to vote.
UKIP is a force, no doubt; but most people do not vote for the party. We'd all do well to remember that. They are the third or fourth party in England. Important, significant, noteworthy, but by no means the voice of the majority - or anything close to it.
Indeed, many people will vote for the other parties for a variety of reasons. That does not mean that "most people in this country are part of the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering, anti-WWC establishment" as you put it.
But isn't that what the three main parties represent, according to UKIP and its supporters? What is a vote for them if not a vote for "the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering, anti-WWC establishment"?
Deliberately interpreting hyperbole literally and insisting everyone speaks with triple consideration lest they leave the slightest hostage to fortune is most certainly a characteristic of the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering anti-WWC establishment.
Is Racist - net (change vs week ago) UKIP: +7 (+6) Farage: -5 (+18)
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
All the signs are that most people in this country are part of the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering, anti-WWC establishment.
Do you seriously expect honest answers from those not conforming to the PC view at a time when Farage was being unprecedently monstered as a racist over the issue by the establishment and mainsteam media?
My guess is that we will find out this evening that UKIP has not received 50% of the votes cast in the EU election last Thursday in what was a secret ballot. Most people that voted will not have voted for UKIP, let alone the majority of all those entitled to vote.
UKIP is a force, no doubt; but most people do not vote for the party. We'd all do well to remember that. They are the third or fourth party in England. Important, significant, noteworthy, but by no means the voice of the majority - or anything close to it.
Indeed, many people will vote for the other parties for a variety of reasons. That does not mean that "most people in this country are part of the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering, anti-WWC establishment" as you put it.
But isn't that what the three main parties represent, according to UKIP and its supporters? What is a vote for them if not a vote for "the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering, anti-WWC establishment"?
Deliberately interpreting hyperbole literally and insisting everyone speaks with triple consideration lest they leave the slightest hostage to fortune is most certainly a characteristic of the metropolitan, left-liberal, sneering anti-WWC establishment.
Indeed it is. Not voting for UKIP is a vote for UKIP. I understand.
Despite a dreadful vote share, the Lib Dems still managed a reasonable number of wins. Sutton, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NW, Birmingham Yardley, look secure. Personal votes would likely see Simon Hughes, Vince Cable and Lynne Featherstone hold on. Manchester Withington and Brent Central are write-offs.
Hornsey and Wood Green does not look too promising on Thursday's results either.
They finished 11% behind Labour, in the constituency, but I think Lynne Featherstone's personal vote should enable them to hold on this time.
Voting like a yokel has clearly addled my brain so much that I now can't begin to understand how I've elicited that response. And us bumpkins are normally quite good fashioning things from straw.
Is Racist - net (change vs week ago) UKIP: +7 (+6) Farage: -5 (+18)
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
But Farage didn't mention anything about Romanian families, he mentioned a group of Romanian men. The implication is totally different, and if the question did mention a family, not only will it have skewed the results
Despite a dreadful vote share, the Lib Dems still managed a reasonable number of wins. Sutton, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NW, Birmingham Yardley, look secure. Personal votes would likely see Simon Hughes, Vince Cable and Lynne Featherstone hold on. Manchester Withington and Brent Central are write-offs.
Hornsey and Wood Green does not look too promising on Thursday's results either.
They finished 11% behind Labour, in the constituency, but I think Lynne Featherstone's personal vote should enable them to hold on this time.
It'll be touch and go. She came from nowhere to beat a Labour MP with a personal vote in 2005. It would not be a huge surprise if the reverse happened next year.
Just one in four believes SNP automatic EU entry claim
A Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times found that 34% believe Scotland would have to go through the same accession process as new member states, while 11% think Scottish membership would be fast-tracked but not in time for 2016. A further 9% believe Scotland would leave the EU and not rejoin, while 21% are unsure.
The findings are a blow for the Yes campaign, which has suggested membership of the EU would be rapid and avoid disruption to the economy.
Broken record time, just need your pal Scott to get out the crypt
Its a new poll!
Don't you like new polls.....anymore?
As I have oft stated , I think all the polls on the referendum are crap , other than showing trend they are garbage as this is not a normal vote that can be linked to previous GE voting and so weighting is bollocks.
Voting like a yokel has clearly addled my brain so much that I now can't begin to understand how I've elicited that response. And us bumpkins are normally quite good fashioning things from straw.
Silly me, I've worked it out now. SO thinks that you are entirely identified by how you vote.
Whilst many of the more excitably elements of the left believe voting for UKIP (who are, of course, racist) makes you a racist.
This is not a universally shared extension - I think you'll struggle to find many UKIP figures who believe that voting for a mainstream party fundamentally identifies those people with everything they stand for.
Clegg (and the coalition) may be finished tonight!
Utter Rubbish.
The Euro elections are the voters ultimate kick the government up the arse with no consequences vote. It's Farage's last hurrah before Ukip's balloon bursts at the GE.
Oh dear, JackW is spluttering into his sporran again. Try to stay calm tonight; a bottle of Glenmorangie for UKIP may help.
Clegg (and the coalition) may be finished tonight!
Utter Rubbish.
The Euro elections are the voters ultimate kick the government up the arse with no consequences vote.
It's Farage's last hurrah before Ukip's balloon bursts at the GE.
My vote in the Euros went to the LDs (whom I wouldn't normally vote for). Basically, it was an anti-UKIP vote, which rewarded the fact that Clegg had at least taken Farage on, unlike the other two. Admittedly, he didn't do it well, but I felt the attempt should be acknowledged. I am conscious this might have been an eccentric and idiosyncratic line of reasoning, but I do wonder whether others might have done the same.
I think there is a lot of froth about this weekend, that will go flat fairly shortly.
For all their hype UKIP have only a few hundred councilors and some very ineffective MEPs, we shall see if the new ones are capable when sobriety returns.
My dear Herders I think the best way to view the LibDems and the GE is in terms of selective hot spots dotted through the country but outwith of which they now enjoy very poor visibility, unlike from Feb74 - Apr92 where the occasional hot spots were accompanied by a very wide tranche of warm spots.
The question is will the hot spots be hot enough ?
Voting like a yokel has clearly addled my brain so much that I now can't begin to understand how I've elicited that response. And us bumpkins are normally quite good fashioning things from straw.
Silly me, I've worked it out now. SO thinks that you are entirely identified by how you vote.
Whilst many of the more excitably elements of the left believe voting for UKIP (who are, of course, racist) makes you a racist.
This is not a universally shared extension - I think you'll struggle to find many UKIP figures who believe that voting for a mainstream party fundamentally identifies those people with everything they stand for.
Nope - what I don't get is why UKIP is not doing much better if it speaks for the silent majority.
What I also don't get is why UKIP should not be judged against the claims it makes. Its consistent theme is that the main parties represent a liberal-left, sneering establishment that is imposing its views on a reluctant electorate. In your own post you say that people who state that UKIP is racist are on the left - so putting many Tories who have made that claim on the left. Thus, what should we conclude when the electorate actually ends up giving most of its votes to the establishment parties?
This hubris of Farage's is how the LibDems can and will survive. There is a lot of scope for a centrist socially liberal party between a Faragist Conservative party and a Milibandist Labour party.
Knee jerk reactions are rarely wise in the longer term. Dumping Clegg now would be unwise, though I think he should be replaced in an orderly manner in the Autumn, so as to have a fresh face for next Springs campaign, and to signal a break from coalition.
There IS a place for that party. But with Clegg loyally leading LibDem MPs to vote for what voters see as Tory bills, that party is NOT the LibDems under his leadership. Yes he is hated, but so are the illiberal anti-people policies LibDems vote through. Swapping Clegg for Beaker would be madness I agree. But replacing him with someone not tainted by the Tories would I believe have a ppositive impact for them. It's just that the only viable candidate is Farron.
The question is this. Aside from the bluster and spin, will the LibDem membership tolerate the destruction of decades of local development? 41% of LibDem councillors up for eleaction lost on Thursday. With similar results last year. And the year before that. And the year before that.
This hubris of Farage's is how the LibDems can and will survive. There is a lot of scope for a centrist socially liberal party between a Faragist Conservative party and a Milibandist Labour party.
Knee jerk reactions are rarely wise in the longer term. Dumping Clegg now would be unwise, though I think he should be replaced in an orderly manner in the Autumn, so as to have a fresh face for next Springs campaign, and to signal a break from coalition.
There IS a place for that party. But with Clegg loyally leading LibDem MPs to vote for what voters see as Tory bills, that party is NOT the LibDems under his leadership. Yes he is hated, but so are the illiberal anti-people policies LibDems vote through. Swapping Clegg for Beaker would be madness I agree. But replacing him with someone not tainted by the Tories would I believe have a ppositive impact for them. It's just that the only viable candidate is Farron.
The question is this. Aside from the bluster and spin, will the LibDem membership tolerate the destruction of decades of local development? 41% of LibDem councillors up for eleaction lost on Thursday. With similar results last year. And the year before that. And the year before that.
I'm pretty sure that Farron will be the post-2015 leader, but there's no way he will want to be associated with the inevitable carnage of the election itself.
Is Racist - net (change vs week ago) UKIP: +7 (+6) Farage: -5 (+18)
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
But Farage didn't mention anything about Romanian families, he mentioned a group of Romanian men. The implication is totally different, and if the question did mention a family, not only will it have skewed the results.
Well, yes. So while most Tory, Labour and LD voters would not have a problem living next door to a Romanian family, most UKIP supporters would.
Ed Miliband defeated his brother David, among other people, to become Labour's leader four years ago. Who do you think would be a better Labour Party leader today?
Clegg (and the coalition) may be finished tonight!
Utter Rubbish.
The Euro elections are the voters ultimate kick the government up the arse with no consequences vote. It's Farage's last hurrah before Ukip's balloon bursts at the GE.
Oh dear, JackW is spluttering into his sporran again. Try to stay calm tonight; a bottle of Glenmorangie for UKIP may help.
It's takes a little more than a temporary explosion of fruitcakery to ruffle the well adjusted feathers on my hat.
I've predicted Ukip will win tonight - enjoy the moment, reality will return next May.
Clegg (and the coalition) may be finished tonight!
Utter Rubbish.
The Euro elections are the voters ultimate kick the government up the arse with no consequences vote.
It's Farage's last hurrah before Ukip's balloon bursts at the GE.
My vote in the Euros went to the LDs (whom I wouldn't normally vote for). Basically, it was an anti-UKIP vote, which rewarded the fact that Clegg had at least taken Farage on, unlike the other two. Admittedly, he didn't do it well, but I felt the attempt should be acknowledged. I am conscious this might have been an eccentric and idiosyncratic line of reasoning, but I do wonder whether others might have done the same.
Possibly but it's more likely they and the Tories are in for a poor night with Labour not having much to cheer about either. It will be Ukip's night.
Just one in four believes SNP automatic EU entry claim
A Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times found that 34% believe Scotland would have to go through the same accession process as new member states, while 11% think Scottish membership would be fast-tracked but not in time for 2016. A further 9% believe Scotland would leave the EU and not rejoin, while 21% are unsure.
The findings are a blow for the Yes campaign, which has suggested membership of the EU would be rapid and avoid disruption to the economy.
It's behind a paywall, so perhaps you can correct the figures - but as I read what you do put, [about 25] + 34 = about 59% think the unionists are lying again and that Scotland will be in the EU by indy day (which is what counts). Which is hardly surprising.
Aand another 11% expect EU membership after an interim period.
You might like to see another example of unionist arithmetic here - which raises some very serious questions about HM Treasury's competence or political bias
Voting like a yokel has clearly addled my brain so much that I now can't begin to understand how I've elicited that response. And us bumpkins are normally quite good fashioning things from straw.
Silly me, I've worked it out now. SO thinks that you are entirely identified by how you vote.
Whilst many of the more excitably elements of the left believe voting for UKIP (who are, of course, racist) makes you a racist.
This is not a universally shared extension - I think you'll struggle to find many UKIP figures who believe that voting for a mainstream party fundamentally identifies those people with everything they stand for.
Nope - what I don't get is why UKIP is not doing much better if it speaks for the silent majority.
What I also don't get is why UKIP should not be judged against the claims it makes. Its consistent theme is that the main parties represent a liberal-left, sneering establishment that is imposing its views on a reluctant electorate. In your own post you say that people who state that UKIP is racist are on the left - so putting many Tories who have made that claim on the left. Thus, what should we conclude when the electorate actually ends up giving most of its votes to the establishment parties?
This is just more posturing. If you want to setup a false referendum where any vote not for UKIP is a firm rejection of everything they stand for, be my guest but in our calmer moments when we're not trying to set up childish debating points, I think we'd both agreed it's not worth a great deal.
There is no silent majority for UKIP's entire package (comprising policies and the lingering fear amongst many voters that its a wasted vote, or that they're just a pack of jokers). But there's any awful lot of people voting for other parties who agree with elements of what they're saying (of course, just like with other parties). So excuse me if I find your false dichotomy as a rather silly attempt to score debating points.
My dear Herders I think the best way to view the LibDems and the GE is in terms of selective hot spots dotted through the country but outwith of which they now enjoy very poor visibility, unlike from Feb74 - Apr92 where the occasional hot spots were accompanied by a very wide tranche of warm spots.
The question is will the hot spots be hot enough ?
I agree. The point I was trying to make with the example is that even if they write off two-thirds of the country with just 2% voting Lib Dem, it's still difficult to square the number of votes they'd have to pick up in these hot spots to win or be in serious contention with their current poll ratings: either their ratings are low or there are fewer hot spots (or, as you say, the hot spots are only luke-warm).
And with that, I'm off for a cycle with the hop of dodging the rain.
I do wonder how long the privatised Royal Mail could or should be allowed to continue calling itself that?
It's only part privatised isn't it?
It's 70% privatised. But come to that, why is the Royal Bank of Scotland (of which I'm a customer) still allowed to use the name, when it's clearly not Royal and arguably hasn't even behaved in the public interest? Once you get the "Royal" tag I think you keep it failing some quite extraordinary circumstances.
because the media - especially the BBC - won't tell them.
What is the scale? If you can see it so clearly how come so many others have missed it?
I have to warn MrJones that if someone responds to such posts by calling him a racist, the topic will eventually be forbidden and he will be banned from bringing such things to people's attention.
Clegg (and the coalition) may be finished tonight!
Utter Rubbish.
The Euro elections are the voters ultimate kick the government up the arse with no consequences vote. It's Farage's last hurrah before Ukip's balloon bursts at the GE.
Oh dear, JackW is spluttering into his sporran again. Try to stay calm tonight; a bottle of Glenmorangie for UKIP may help.
It's takes a little more than a temporary explosion of fruitcakery to ruffle the well adjusted feathers on my hat.
I've predicted Ukip will win tonight - enjoy the moment, reality will return next May.
"Now I will destroy the Tory party': In a crowing interview, Nigel Farage reveals he will quit politics... once he's got the UK out of the EU"
From reading it, what he means is that he will destroy the tory party as we know it, essentially destroy the "wets" who now run it in exactly the same way as the Reform party did for the Canadian conservative party which was forced to merge with the Reform party after losing most of its seats. We saw it happen in Canada, we saw it happen in NI will it happen here - I really hope so.
Personally I think this all goes back to the fall of Thatcher. While she is considered to be right wing and anti worker the worst of this was done by the wets post Thatcher. Thatcher would have never countenanced the closure of the Nottinghamshire Coal field or rail privatisation for example.
"..Thatcher would have never countenanced the closure of the Nottinghamshire Coal field or rail privatisation for example. "
Really ?
Thatcher always insisted it was a mistake to privatise the railways and resisted it in spite of Parkinson's pressure whilst she was in power. The Thatcher haters tend to conveniently forget it but it was Major not Thatcher who privatised the railways and brought about the effective end of the Nottinghamshire coal field.
Thatcher certainly had a sense of what would and would not go politically - didn't she say you couldn't privatize the Post Office because it was the Royal Mail? She was perhaps less good at picking colleagues, probably because in her ideal world she would've held all the portfolios herself...
I do wonder how long the privatised Royal Mail could or should be allowed to continue calling itself that?
Agreed - should the Queen's head also be used on stamps now?
The lunacy of rail privatisation is still haunting us. Both major parties have refused to correct this huge error which has made our railways worse than what I experienced in both India and Sri Lanka (ironic that the British set up the railways here - maybe we should ask the Indians to come over and sort out our fourth world railways?)
I've been on the railways in both India and Sri Lanka. It's absurd to say that they provide a better service than here.
because the media - especially the BBC - won't tell them.
What is the scale? If you can see it so clearly how come so many others have missed it?
I have to warn MrJones that if someone responds to such posts by calling him a racist, the topic will eventually be forbidden and he will be banned from bringing such things to people's attention.
That answers your question, incidentally Southam.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. If chronic overcrowding and people trafficking are so widespread, why aren't people noticing it? And if they are noticing it, why aren't they voting to do something about it?
I think there is a lot of froth about this weekend, that will go flat fairly shortly.
For all their hype UKIP have only a few hundred councilors and some very ineffective MEPs, we shall see if the new ones are capable when sobriety returns.
Clegg (and the coalition) may be finished tonight!
Utter Rubbish.
The Euro elections are the voters ultimate kick the government up the arse with no consequences vote.
It's Farage's last hurrah before Ukip's balloon bursts at the GE.
It would be churlish to spoil Ukip's moment in the sun but for the 2015 GE they will find FPTP and the voters determination on who runs the country will be a very hard threshold for them to pass.
"Now I will destroy the Tory party': In a crowing interview, Nigel Farage reveals he will quit politics... once he's got the UK out of the EU"
From reading it, what he means is that he will destroy the tory party as we know it, essentially destroy the "wets" who now run it in exactly the same way as the Reform party did for the Canadian conservative party which was forced to merge with the Reform party after losing most of its seats. We saw it happen in Canada, we saw it happen in NI will it happen here - I really hope so.
Personally I think this all goes back to the fall of Thatcher. While she is considered to be right wing and anti worker the worst of this was done by the wets post Thatcher. Thatcher would have never countenanced the closure of the Nottinghamshire Coal field or rail privatisation for example.
"..Thatcher would have never countenanced the closure of the Nottinghamshire Coal field or rail privatisation for example. "
Really ?
Thatcher always insisted it was a mistake to privatise the railways and resisted it in spite of Parkinson's pressure whilst she was in power. The Thatcher haters tend to conveniently forget it but it was Major not Thatcher who privatised the railways and brought about the effective end of the Nottinghamshire coal field.
Thatcher certainly had a sense of what would and would not go politically - didn't she say you couldn't privatize the Post Office because it was the Royal Mail? She was perhaps less good at picking colleagues, probably because in her ideal world she would've held all the portfolios herself...
I do wonder how long the privatised Royal Mail could or should be allowed to continue calling itself that?
Agreed - should the Queen's head also be used on stamps now?
The lunacy of rail privatisation is still haunting us. Both major parties have refused to correct this huge error which has made our railways worse than what I experienced in both India and Sri Lanka (ironic that the British set up the railways here - maybe we should ask the Indians to come over and sort out our fourth world railways?)
I've been on the railways in both India and Sri Lanka. It's absurd to say that they provide a better service than here.
Is Racist - net (change vs week ago) UKIP: +7 (+6) Farage: -5 (+18)
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
But Farage didn't mention anything about Romanian families, he mentioned a group of Romanian men. The implication is totally different, and if the question did mention a family, not only will it have skewed the results
Did College ever mention the possibility of a group of Romanian women moving in next door?
That may be more popular than men, if you know what I mean ...
Just one in four believes SNP automatic EU entry claim
A Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times found that 34% believe Scotland would have to go through the same accession process as new member states, while 11% think Scottish membership would be fast-tracked but not in time for 2016. A further 9% believe Scotland would leave the EU and not rejoin, while 21% are unsure.
The findings are a blow for the Yes campaign, which has suggested membership of the EU would be rapid and avoid disruption to the economy.
It's behind a paywall, so perhaps you can correct the figures - but as I read what you do put, [about 25] + 34 = about 59% think the unionists are lying again and that Scotland will be in the EU by indy day (which is what counts). Which is hardly surprising.
Aand another 11% expect EU membership after an interim period.
You might like to see another example of unionist arithmetic here - which raises some very serious questions about HM Treasury's competence or political bias
I'm more interested in waiting to see the Euro results tonight. They could be very interesting indeed.
Carnyx, Carlotta is only interested in it looking bad for SNP and Scotland. Pointing out the truth behind the numbers is therefore not an option , Tories as ever prefer to lie and make the numbers out to be what they are not. Carlotta will be frothing next week re the fake treasury figures that will show us to be totally dependent on London. They will again lie through their teeth using the paid lackeys of the civil service. They have us down as needing 118 government departments when UK managesto run up £1.5 trillion in debt with just 24. Carlotta is a Tory troll who will punt any lie possible to feed her hatred of SNP and Scotland.
I think Clegg will probably stay at the helm, although Shadsy's offer of 5/1 that he won't is quite tempting. More likely I believe is a formal break-up of the coalition sooner rather than later and probably this year to convince Clegg's MPs, LibDem voters and the country at large that he has the necessary spheres. Plus there's very little meaningful legislation to enact before the GE anyway. As recently as late October 2013, I was betting on a coalition break-up during 2014 at odds of 5/1 with Paddy Power, but they since appear to have taken down this market. Right now, I'd be interested in increasing my bet at half those odds.
Voting like a yokel has clearly addled my brain so much that I now can't begin to understand how I've elicited that response. And us bumpkins are normally quite good fashioning things from straw.
Silly me, I've worked it out now. SO thinks that you are entirely identified by how you vote.
Whilst many of the more excitably elements of the left believe voting for UKIP (who are, of course, racist) makes you a racist.
This is not a universally shared extension - I think you'll struggle to find many UKIP figures who believe that voting for a mainstream party fundamentally identifies those people with everything they stand for.
Nope - what I don't get is why UKIP is not doing much better if it speaks for the silent majority.
What I also don't get is why UKIP should not be judged against the claims it makes. Its consistent theme is that the main parties represent a liberal-left, sneering establishment that is imposing its views on a reluctant electorate. In your own post you say that people who state that UKIP is racist are on the left - so putting many Tories who have made that claim on the left. Thus, what should we conclude when the electorate actually ends up giving most of its votes to the establishment parties?
This is just more posturing. If you want to setup a false referendum where any vote not for UKIP is a firm rejection of everything they stand for, be my guest but in our calmer moments when we're not trying to set up childish debating points, I think we'd both agreed it's not worth a great deal.
There is no silent majority for UKIP's entire package (comprising policies and the lingering fear amongst many voters that its a wasted vote, or that they're just a pack of jokers). But there's any awful lot of people voting for other parties who agree with elements of what they're saying (of course, just like with other parties). So excuse me if I find your false dichotomy as a rather silly attempt to score debating points.
So when UKIP supporters on here and elsewhere say that those accusing the part of racism are lefties we should ignore that? And we should also ignore the frequent claims that the Tories, the LDs and Labour are all part of a sneering, metropolitan, leftist elite? What bits of what UKIP says should we take notice of then?
Question is, will the move on Clegg gain momentum?
Off topic: Local elections in NI. Summary.
-Unionists are a bit hacked off, just a bit, not hugely but a bit with the status quo. Unionists vote down the card in an STV system. Smaller parties, particularly on the Unionist side did alright.
-Nationalism is becoming ever more like unionists in its voting levels. Nationalists still don't quite vote down the card like unionists (either way SDLP>SF and SF>SDLP) and possibly never will.
Just one in four believes SNP automatic EU entry claim
A Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times found that 34% believe Scotland would have to go through the same accession process as new member states, while 11% think Scottish membership would be fast-tracked but not in time for 2016. A further 9% believe Scotland would leave the EU and not rejoin, while 21% are unsure.
The findings are a blow for the Yes campaign, which has suggested membership of the EU would be rapid and avoid disruption to the economy.
It's behind a paywall, so perhaps you can correct the figures - but as I read what you do put, [about 25] + 34 = about 59% think the unionists are lying again and that Scotland will be in the EU by indy day (which is what counts). Which is hardly surprising.
Aand another 11% expect EU membership after an interim period.
You might like to see another example of unionist arithmetic here - which raises some very serious questions about HM Treasury's competence or political bias
Is Racist - net (change vs week ago) UKIP: +7 (+6) Farage: -5 (+18)
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
But Farage didn't mention anything about Romanian families, he mentioned a group of Romanian men. The implication is totally different, and if the question did mention a family, not only will it have skewed the results
Did College ever mention the possibility of a group of Romanian women moving in next door?
That may be more popular than men, if you know what I mean ...
Nudge. Nudge. Say no more.
Avery brings common sense to the topic as ever. Are you in for a job running the FA by chance.
No, Mike, the Poll Tax wasn't egalitarian let alone socialist - socialists want to take from each according to their ability, remember.
Perhaps you're on the right because you just can't understand the left...
I think it was because she saw two roles for the tax system: taxes to fund government services and tax to achieve redistributive objectives.
I suspect the left/redistribution side benefits because these objectives are combined into a single tax structure. If it was clear that "tax A" (e.g. a poll tax) was funding government spending, while "tax B" (e.g. income tax) was simply to redistribute wealth there would be a lot more push back against redistribution.
But it's the same problem as merging NICs and income tax: while it may make logical sense the losers scream louder than the winners, so it becomes politically very difficult
Voting like a yokel has clearly addled my brain so much that I now can't begin to understand how I've elicited that response. And us bumpkins are normally quite good fashioning things from straw.
Silly me, I've worked it out now. SO thinks that you are entirely identified by how you vote.
Whilst many of the more excitably elements of the left believe voting for UKIP (who are, of course, racist) makes you a racist.
This is not a universally shared extension - I think you'll struggle to find many UKIP figures who believe that voting for a mainstream party fundamentally identifies those people with everything they stand for.
Nope - what I don't get is why UKIP is not doing much better if it speaks for the silent majority.
What I also don't get is why UKIP should not be judged against the claims it makes. Its consistent theme is that the main parties represent a liberal-left, sneering establishment that is imposing its views on a reluctant electorate. In your own post you say that people who state that UKIP is racist are on the left - so putting many Tories who have made that claim on the left. Thus, what should we conclude when the electorate actually ends up giving most of its votes to the establishment parties?
This is just more posturing. If you want to setup a false referendum where any vote not for UKIP is a firm rejection of everything they stand for, be my guest but in our calmer moments when we're not trying to set up childish debating points, I think we'd both agreed it's not worth a great deal.
There is no silent majority for UKIP's entire package (comprising policies and the lingering fear amongst many voters that its a wasted vote, or that they're just a pack of jokers). But there's any awful lot of people voting for other parties who agree with elements of what they're saying (of course, just like with other parties). So excuse me if I find your false dichotomy as a rather silly attempt to score debating points.
So when UKIP supporters on here and elsewhere say that those accusing the part of racism are lefties we should ignore that? And we should also ignore the frequent claims that the Tories, the LDs and Labour are all part of a sneering, metropolitan, leftist elite? What bits of what UKIP says should we take notice of then?
I think the term Stalin used for such people was 'rootless cosmopolitans'. He, of course, went a little further than simply ignoring their views.
because the media - especially the BBC - won't tell them.
What is the scale? If you can see it so clearly how come so many others have missed it?
I have to warn MrJones that if someone responds to such posts by calling him a racist, the topic will eventually be forbidden and he will be banned from bringing such things to people's attention.
That answers your question, incidentally Southam.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. If chronic overcrowding and people trafficking are so widespread, why aren't people noticing it? And if they are noticing it, why aren't they voting to do something about it?
The people of Rotherham have noticed and did just vote to do something about it. Unless the Tories and Labour get their act together on grooming gangs and human/sex trafficking in this country then I expect UKIP to perform well as the only mainstream party willing to call a spade a spade and not worry about being seen as racist. The grooming gangs have been allowed to get away with their despicable acts for so long because the police didn't want to flare up community tensions (basically they didn't want to be seen as racist). UKIP have, to their credit, have made people aware of this very important issue and while I don't believe they did it for electoral gains, they are set to reap the benefits just as they did in Rotherham. Labour are lucky there weren't elections in other areas with a high level of trafficking and grooming.
So when UKIP supporters on here and elsewhere say that those accusing the part of racism are lefties we should ignore that? And we should also ignore the frequent claims that the Tories, the LDs and Labour are all part of a sneering, metropolitan, leftist elite? What bits of what UKIP says should we take notice of then?
You're looping in very boring circles.
There is no disconnect between saying those parties are XXX YYY establishment, whilst not believing that all their voters are the same thing. If you look back to the start of this, the only root of this discussion is your feigned desire to suggest that votes for those parties automatically endorse the 'metropolitan liberal establishment'. We both know that is not the case. It is perfectly possible for that to be the case and for people to still vote for them for other reasons, whilst disliking that element of them. Things can have more than 1 characteristic , and voters can vote for more than 1 reason.
This hubris of Farage's is how the LibDems can and will survive. There is a lot of scope for a centrist socially liberal party between a Faragist Conservative party and a Milibandist Labour party.
Knee jerk reactions are rarely wise in the longer term. Dumping Clegg now would be unwise, though I think he should be replaced in an orderly manner in the Autumn, so as to have a fresh face for next Springs campaign, and to signal a break from coalition.
There IS a place for that party. But with Clegg loyally leading LibDem MPs to vote for what voters see as Tory bills, that party is NOT the LibDems under his leadership. Yes he is hated, but so are the illiberal anti-people policies LibDems vote through. Swapping Clegg for Beaker would be madness I agree. But replacing him with someone not tainted by the Tories would I believe have a ppositive impact for them. It's just that the only viable candidate is Farron.
The question is this. Aside from the bluster and spin, will the LibDem membership tolerate the destruction of decades of local development? 41% of LibDem councillors up for eleaction lost on Thursday. With similar results last year. And the year before that. And the year before that.
Clegg and the policies they supported in coalition is destroying this once great party in front of our very eyes. Any credit for the elusive recovery in people's lives will be given to the Tories, not the Liberals.
Below the radar, the Greens are finally picking up some of the protest votes. Does anyone know what happened in Norwich South ?
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. If chronic overcrowding and people trafficking are so widespread, why aren't people noticing it? And if they are noticing it, why aren't they voting to do something about it?
Some people are noticing it, and it is picked up in local newspapers. However the national media oligarchy, dominated by the BBC, find it not really acceptable for polite society and don't report it, unless buried deep in local segments. Meanwhile, those that talk about such things on mainstream message boards are vilified as being bigots with obsessions, and, if that doesn't silence them, actually banned from discussing it. This happened to me on another topic on this very board. (This is something difficult for me to go further with, as I have been banned from alluding to it too much, but no moderator has never clarified what the line is, despite numerous questions. It's possible I will get a day's ban just for saying this much, so apologies if I go silent.) The overall effect is that the broader public doesn't know the scale of some of these issues, and, being low-information, assume that those animated about such things must be prejudiced rather than believe the facts aren't being reported.
because the media - especially the BBC - won't tell them.
What is the scale? If you can see it so clearly how come so many others have missed it?
I have to warn MrJones that if someone responds to such posts by calling him a racist, the topic will eventually be forbidden and he will be banned from bringing such things to people's attention.
That answers your question, incidentally Southam.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. If chronic overcrowding and people trafficking are so widespread, why aren't people noticing it? And if they are noticing it, why aren't they voting to do something about it?
The people of Rotherham have noticed and did just vote to do something about it. Unless the Tories and Labour get their act together on grooming gangs and human/sex trafficking in this country then I expect UKIP to perform well as the only mainstream party willing to call a spade a spade and not worry about being seen as racist. The grooming gangs have been allowed to get away with their despicable acts for so long because the police didn't want to flare up community tensions (basically they didn't want to be seen as racist). UKIP have, to their credit, have made people aware of this very important issue and while I don't believe they did it for electoral gains, they are set to reap the benefits just as they did in Rotherham. Labour are lucky there weren't elections in other areas with a high level of trafficking and grooming.
OK. There is something in your point about the gangs being allowed to 'get away with it' for a time. However, members of these gangs are now serving lengthy jail sentences, not because UKIP brought our attention to what was happening, but because a combination of social services, the Police and the CPS ensured they were prosecuted.
I do wonder how long the privatised Royal Mail could or should be allowed to continue calling itself that?
It's only part privatised isn't it?
It's 70% privatised. But come to that, why is the Royal Bank of Scotland (of which I'm a customer) still allowed to use the name, when it's clearly not Royal and arguably hasn't even behaved in the public interest? Once you get the "Royal" tag I think you keep it failing some quite extraordinary circumstances.
A fair point but would present the trademark/IP lawyers with something of a problem. If RBS was forced to drop the Royal title then it would simply become Bank of Scotland but there is already another bank called Bank of Scotland. I am not sure what could be done about it as RBS would not have opted to drop the Royal prefix by choice but had it taken away from them by official diktat.
A) The 3 westminster parties are a metropolital liberal establishment. IF someone votes for one of the 3 westminster parties they are endoring that metropolitan liberal establishment. C) A Majority have voted for those 3 parties.
You're setting this up to suggest that either -
D) we have a majority in favour of the postulated metropolitan liberal establishment.
OR
E) Statement A) is incorrect.
I am refusing to go along because statement is clearly incorrect.
It's perfectly possible for people to think these parties are out of touch but still vote for them for a variety of different reasons. Your insistence that UKIP using B as an attempt to drum up votes in an election means they must be endorsing it as absolute truth is faux naive student debating at its very worst.
Agreed , the most sense I have heard from anyone on the issue.
So what sense did he promote
Malcolm
To paraphrase him he said if you believe in independence vote for it , the same for staying in the UK.
Do not vote for if you think you will be slightly better of either way, as listening to lying actors and politicians who probably will not be there in 10 years, is not the best judge , go with your own principles for better or worse.
If I live in Scotland I would vote yes for independence , but would want true independence , an elected head of state , and our own independent bank.
So when UKIP supporters on here and elsewhere say that those accusing the part of racism are lefties we should ignore that? And we should also ignore the frequent claims that the Tories, the LDs and Labour are all part of a sneering, metropolitan, leftist elite? What bits of what UKIP says should we take notice of then?
You're looping in very boring circles.
There is no disconnect between saying those parties are XXX YYY establishment, whilst not believing that all their voters are the same thing. If you look back to the start of this, the only root of this discussion is your feigned desire to suggest that votes for those parties automatically endorse the 'metropolitan liberal establishment'. We both know that is not the case. It is perfectly possible for that to be the case and for people to still vote for them for other reasons, whilst disliking that element of them. Things can have more than 1 characteristic , and voters can vote for more than 1 reason.
I have no desire - feigned or otherwise - to equate a vote for Labour, the LDs or the Tories with a vote for the establishment. But UKIP and its supporters frame the choice on those terms - UKIP is the party of the silent majority, the establishment parties are sneering, metropolitan and on the left. And we have seen you have claimed that those who claim UKIP is racist are left-wing.
So let's put it another way: if UKIP does represent the silent majority and the traditional big three are the voice of a leftist, sneering, metropolitan, out of touch elite, why in the privacy of the ballot booth, where no-one knows how you vote, have so many voters failed to heed what UKIP says?
This is obviously a "thing" of yours. Whilst I agree that the Council Tax needs more bands (at least in London) I remain to be convinced that it's otherwise so bad as to warrant the upheaval you propose.
As to London property prices (and I write as a tenant) I doubt there is any administrative solution - don't markets correct themselves? I'm always being told they do... by people who have never heard of Ricardo and who think there are only two factors of production...
The London housing market is working fine from a market perspective. It's just that the demand from international investors has driven prices to a level where most UK nationals (including myself) are not able to afford a house in the area they want.
There may be a case to intervene because of the social consequences (and possibly the economic side effects) but there's not really a case to intervene because of market failure (except in the government constraints on the availability of supply)
OK. There is something in your point about the gangs being allowed to 'get away with it' for a time. However, members of these gangs are now serving lengthy jail sentences, not because UKIP brought our attention to what was happening, but because a combination of social services, the Police and the CPS ensured they were prosecuted.
They are NOT serving lengthy jail sentences. In most cases they will be free to walk the streets in less than a decade, while their victims will mostly remain emotionally scarred from holding down normal relationships for the rest of their lives.
The people of Rotherham have noticed and did just vote to do something about it. Unless the Tories and Labour get their act together on grooming gangs and human/sex trafficking in this country then I expect UKIP to perform well as the only mainstream party willing to call a spade a spade and not worry about being seen as racist. The grooming gangs have been allowed to get away with their despicable acts for so long because the police didn't want to flare up community tensions (basically they didn't want to be seen as racist). UKIP have, to their credit, have made people aware of this very important issue and while I don't believe they did it for electoral gains, they are set to reap the benefits just as they did in Rotherham. Labour are lucky there weren't elections in other areas with a high level of trafficking and grooming.
OK. There is something in your point about the gangs being allowed to 'get away with it' for a time. However, members of these gangs are now serving lengthy jail sentences, not because UKIP brought our attention to what was happening, but because a combination of social services, the Police and the CPS ensured they were prosecuted.
The UKIP argument is still valid because it is anti-PC and nothing has been done to prosecute the people who turned a blind eye for so long in social services and the police.
Is Racist - net (change vs week ago) UKIP: +7 (+6) Farage: -5 (+18)
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
But Farage didn't mention anything about Romanian families, he mentioned a group of Romanian men. The implication is totally different, and if the question did mention a family, not only will it have skewed the results
I quite agree re the distiction between men and family- subtle but important difference. However waht is really interesting about those figures is thev extent to whyich voters of all parties apparently agree with Farage (with the possible exception of the Lib-Dems but even there there is a 25% difference).
Although there is a plurality of support for the Romanians by supporters for all three main parties the figures do indicate that a substantial minority in each case would be uncomfortable with our putative Romanian family.
... The party argued – not for the first time – that it was often performing better in places where it already has a sitting MP and thus has a strong base of local support. ..... on average Liberal Democrat support was down just as much – that is, by no less than 13 points – in Liberal Democrat MPs’ constituencies as elsewhere. In short, there was little consistent sign of the ability of Liberal Democrats’ personal popularity to stem the receding tide. And next year their own seats will be on the line.
That is a useful insight. As antifrank says, in parts the LDs seem to have reached a tipping point where incumbency does not work.
Incumbency did not save the FPTP Lib Dem MSPs at the Scottish GE in 2011. They lost in:
Aberdeen South & North Kincardine Aberdeenshire West Caithness, Sutherland & Ross Dunfermline Edinburgh Southern Edinburgh Western Fife North East Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch
It was a total wipeout on the mainland. The SLDs only held on to two FPTP seats:
The people of Rotherham have noticed and did just vote to do something about it. Unless the Tories and Labour get their act together on grooming gangs and human/sex trafficking in this country then I expect UKIP to perform well as the only mainstream party willing to call a spade a spade and not worry about being seen as racist. The grooming gangs have been allowed to get away with their despicable acts for so long because the police didn't want to flare up community tensions (basically they didn't want to be seen as racist). UKIP have, to their credit, have made people aware of this very important issue and while I don't believe they did it for electoral gains, they are set to reap the benefits just as they did in Rotherham. Labour are lucky there weren't elections in other areas with a high level of trafficking and grooming.
OK. There is something in your point about the gangs being allowed to 'get away with it' for a time. However, members of these gangs are now serving lengthy jail sentences, not because UKIP brought our attention to what was happening, but because a combination of social services, the Police and the CPS ensured they were prosecuted.
The UKIP argument is still valid because it is anti-PC and nothing has been done to prosecute the people who turned a blind eye for so long in social services and the police.
There were also elections in Rochdale and Oxford last Thursday, so I am not sure that Labour did pay a huge price for the child grooming scandals outside of Rotherham. While I agree there was certainly a despicable element of reverse racism in all these cases, they should also be put in the wider context of the utterly abysmal way in which the country has traditionally treated all cases of child abuse. To ignore that as a major factor is just as appalling as seeking to brush out the race element.
So when UKIP supporters on here and elsewhere say that those accusing the part of racism are lefties we should ignore that? And we should also ignore the frequent claims that the Tories, the LDs and Labour are all part of a sneering, metropolitan, leftist elite? What bits of what UKIP says should we take notice of then?
You're looping in very boring circles.
There is no disconnect between saying those parties are XXX YYY establishment, whilst not believing that all their voters are the same thing. If you look back to the start of this, the only root of this discussion is your feigned desire to suggest that votes for those parties automatically endorse the 'metropolitan liberal establishment'. We both know that is not the case. It is perfectly possible for that to be the case and for people to still vote for them for other reasons, whilst disliking that element of them. Things can have more than 1 characteristic , and voters can vote for more than 1 reason.
And we have seen you have claimed that those who claim UKIP is racist are left-wing.
You keep saying this. It's not true.
I've read enough of your posts to know you're bright enough to tell the difference between a partial and complete set, so please stop suggesting that because I said some left wing people think UKIP are racist, I said anyone accusing UKIP of being racist is leftwing. Because I clearly didn't, and pretending I did does not help me believe you're discussing this in good faith.
The important part of that sentence, which you keep refusing to engage with, is that I was denying that people should be defined by who they voted for. I used UKIP and racism as a topical example. People from across the spectrum have made that accusation. As it happens, I do believe those on the left are more likely to make the leap from UKIP as racists to UKIP voters as racists, but that is neither here nor there.
The people of Rotherham have noticed and did just vote to do something about it. Unless the Tories and Labour get their act together on grooming gangs and human/sex trafficking in this country then I expect UKIP to perform well as the only mainstream party willing to call a spade a spade and not worry about being seen as racist. The grooming gangs have been allowed to get away with their despicable acts for so long because the police didn't want to flare up community tensions (basically they didn't want to be seen as racist). UKIP have, to their credit, have made people aware of this very important issue and while I don't believe they did it for electoral gains, they are set to reap the benefits just as they did in Rotherham. Labour are lucky there weren't elections in other areas with a high level of trafficking and grooming.
OK. There is something in your point about the gangs being allowed to 'get away with it' for a time. However, members of these gangs are now serving lengthy jail sentences, not because UKIP brought our attention to what was happening, but because a combination of social services, the Police and the CPS ensured they were prosecuted.
The UKIP argument is still valid because it is anti-PC and nothing has been done to prosecute the people who turned a blind eye for so long in social services and the police.
There were also elections in Rochdale and Oxford last Thursday, so I am not sure that Labour did pay a huge price for the child grooming scandals outside of Rotherham. While I agree there was certainly a despicable element of reverse racism in all these cases, they should also be put in the wider context of the utterly abysmal way in which the country has traditionally treated all cases of child abuse. To ignore that as a major factor is just as appalling as seeking to brush out the race element.
Well UKIP won't do well in Oxford, I think that is fair to say. However in Rochdale they picked up 17% of the vote, but their support was spread too evenly. Give them time to hone their tactics and message to key wards like they did in Rotherham and I think they could do well in terms of seats. They won a sizeable proportion of the popular vote there so they clearly had some impact.
So when UKIP supporters on here and elsewhere say that those accusing the part of racism are lefties we should ignore that? And we should also ignore the frequent claims that the Tories, the LDs and Labour are all part of a sneering, metropolitan, leftist elite? What bits of what UKIP says should we take notice of then?
You're looping in very boring circles.
There is no disconnect between saying those parties are XXX YYY establishment, whilst not believing that all their voters are the same thing. If you look back to the start of this, the only root of this discussion is your feigned desire to suggest that votes for those parties automatically endorse the 'metropolitan liberal establishment'. We both know that is not the case. It is perfectly possible for that to be the case and for people to still vote for them for other reasons, whilst disliking that element of them. Things can have more than 1 characteristic , and voters can vote for more than 1 reason.
I have no desire - feigned or otherwise - to equate a vote for Labour, the LDs or the Tories with a vote for the establishment. But UKIP and its supporters frame the choice on those terms - UKIP is the party of the silent majority, the establishment parties are sneering, metropolitan and on the left. And we have seen you have claimed that those who claim UKIP is racist are left-wing.
So let's put it another way: if UKIP does represent the silent majority and the traditional big three are the voice of a leftist, sneering, metropolitan, out of touch elite, why in the privacy of the ballot booth, where no-one knows how you vote, have so many voters failed to heed what UKIP says?
A few years ago UKIP were on 3.5 percent. The metropolitan elite was just as sneery then. Pennies drop over time.
Agreed , the most sense I have heard from anyone on the issue.
So what sense did he promote
Malcolm
To paraphrase him he said if you believe in independence vote for it , the same for staying in the UK.
Do not vote for if you think you will be slightly better of either way, as listening to lying actors and politicians who probably will not be there in 10 years, is not the best judge , go with your own principles for better or worse.
If I live in Scotland I would vote yes for independence , but would want true independence , an elected head of state , and our own independent bank.
Yorkcity , thanks for that , So very sensible , we have to vote YES to have any chance of his wish for elected head of state and independent bank , they will surely come if not instantly. You cannot achieve everything on day one. I am amazed that anyone could be swayed by just what politicians or actors say but unfortunately it is reality that many people are like sheep.
So when UKIP supporters on here and elsewhere say that those accusing the part of racism are lefties we should ignore that? And we should also ignore the frequent claims that the Tories, the LDs and Labour are all part of a sneering, metropolitan, leftist elite? What bits of what UKIP says should we take notice of then?
You're looping in very boring circles.
There is no disconnect between saying those parties are XXX YYY establishment, whilst not believing that all their voters are the same thing. If you look back to the start of this, the only root of this discussion is your feigned desire to suggest that votes for those parties automatically endorse the 'metropolitan liberal establishment'. We both know that is not the case. It is perfectly possible for that to be the case and for people to still vote for them for other reasons, whilst disliking that element of them. Things can have more than 1 characteristic , and voters can vote for more than 1 reason.
And we have seen you have claimed that those who claim UKIP is racist are left-wing.
You keep saying this. It's not true.
I've read enough of your posts to know you're bright enough to tell the difference between a partial and complete set, so please stop suggesting that because I said some left wing people think UKIP are racist, I said anyone accusing UKIP of being racist is leftwing. Because I clearly didn't, and pretending I did does not help me believe you're discussing this in good faith.
The important part of that sentence, which you keep refusing to engage with, is that I was denying that people should be defined by who they voted for. I used UKIP and racism as a topical example. People from across the spectrum have made that accusation. As it happens, I do believe those on the left are more likely to make the leap from UKIP as racists to UKIP voters as racists, but that is neither here nor there.
Apologies. I took this:
"Whilst many of the more excitably elements of the left believe voting for UKIP (who are, of course, racist) makes you a racist"
to mean that you thought anyone accusing UKIP voters of racism was left wing. It was a genuine misunderstanding. I agree with you that UKIP voters have been accused of racism by people from across the political spectrum.
The Dewsbury case was Hungarians being exploited, but not grooming or sexual exploitation from the reports that I have read. Could you find a link to show me otherwise?
The grooming gangs do finally seem to be being exposed and imprisoned, and I agree that a national inquiry into the inactions of police and social services in the past is needed.
The groomers were very rarely from the EU, and often were British born Muslims. Leaving the EU will do nothing to resolve the problem. Attitudes to sexual behavior, drinking, drugs and family breakdown in targeted communities as well as in the subsections of the community doing the targeting need addressing. We have to ask how these young girls came to be in the care of social services in the first place.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. If chronic overcrowding and people trafficking are so widespread, why aren't people noticing it? And if they are noticing it, why aren't they voting to do something about it?
Some people are noticing it, and it is picked up in local newspapers. However the national media oligarchy, dominated by the BBC, find it not really acceptable for polite society and don't report it, unless buried deep in local segments. Meanwhile, those that talk about such things on mainstream message boards are vilified as being bigots with obsessions, and, if that doesn't silence them, actually banned from discussing it. This happened to me on another topic on this very board. (This is something difficult for me to go further with, as I have been banned from alluding to it too much, but no moderator has never clarified what the line is, despite numerous questions. It's possible I will get a day's ban just for saying this much, so apologies if I go silent.) The overall effect is that the broader public doesn't know the scale of some of these issues, and, being low-information, assume that those animated about such things must be prejudiced rather than believe the facts aren't being reported.
I do wonder how long the privatised Royal Mail could or should be allowed to continue calling itself that?
It's only part privatised isn't it?
It's 70% privatised. But come to that, why is the Royal Bank of Scotland (of which I'm a customer) still allowed to use the name, when it's clearly not Royal and arguably hasn't even behaved in the public interest? Once you get the "Royal" tag I think you keep it failing some quite extraordinary circumstances.
A fair point but would present the trademark/IP lawyers with something of a problem. If RBS was forced to drop the Royal title then it would simply become Bank of Scotland but there is already another bank called Bank of Scotland. I am not sure what could be done about it as RBS would not have opted to drop the Royal prefix by choice but had it taken away from them by official diktat.
Usually the "Royal" comes from the initial Royal Charter that is the founding constitutional document of the company. To remove it you'd need to revoke this, and it would probably has all sorts of other consequences
Despite a dreadful vote share, the Lib Dems still managed a reasonable number of wins. Sutton, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NW, Birmingham Yardley, look secure. Personal votes would likely see Simon Hughes, Vince Cable and Lynne Featherstone hold on. Manchester Withington and Brent Central are write-offs.
Hornsey and Wood Green does not look too promising on Thursday's results either.
They finished 11% behind Labour, in the constituency, but I think Lynne Featherstone's personal vote should enable them to hold on this time.
It'll be touch and go. She came from nowhere to beat a Labour MP with a personal vote in 2005. It would not be a huge surprise if the reverse happened next year.
I think it's stretching things somewhat to suggest that Barbara Roche had a (positive) personal vote!
I do wonder how long the privatised Royal Mail could or should be allowed to continue calling itself that?
It's only part privatised isn't it?
It's 70% privatised. But come to that, why is the Royal Bank of Scotland (of which I'm a customer) still allowed to use the name, when it's clearly not Royal and arguably hasn't even behaved in the public interest? Once you get the "Royal" tag I think you keep it failing some quite extraordinary circumstances.
A fair point but would present the trademark/IP lawyers with something of a problem. If RBS was forced to drop the Royal title then it would simply become Bank of Scotland but there is already another bank called Bank of Scotland. I am not sure what could be done about it as RBS would not have opted to drop the Royal prefix by choice but had it taken away from them by official diktat.
The Royal Bank of Scotland was founded under Royal Charter, hence its right to use the term "royal" in its name.
The reason for granting the charter was to provide a Hannoverian/Whig alternative to the Bank of Scotland which was widely suspected of raising funds for the Jacobite cause.
From its history we may determine that although Nick Palmer may bank with the RBoS Group, Jack W is most unlikely to have been lured into entrusting them with his funds.
... it was difficult to find a silver lining to the cloud hanging over the Liberal Democrats. Once the local elections were the party’s forte; now they have become an annual embarrassment.
The party argued – not for the first time – that it was often performing better in places where it already has a sitting MP and thus has a strong base of local support. Indeed, there was the occasional bright spot – the party actually did better than in the 2010 general election in Bradford East and Birmingham Yardley. But there were plenty of disappointments too, not least the fact that the party came second to the Conservatives in Vince Cable’s Twickenham constituency and lost control of Ed Davey’s Kingston backyard.
Consequently, on average Liberal Democrat support was down just as much – that is, by no less than 13 points – in Liberal Democrat MPs’ constituencies as elsewhere. In short, there was little consistent sign of the ability of Liberal Democrats’ personal popularity to stem the receding tide. And next year their own seats will be on the line.
That analysis runs counter to the fairy stories we are regularly peddled here at PB about the LD incumbency effect.
I think you'll find punters weren't voting on their LibDem MP's incumbency in the local/euro elections. That comes near year.
Apart from that gaping whole in your thinking that was a searing analysis.
But it was not my analysis Jack, it was John Curtice's analysis today:
- "on average Liberal Democrat support was down just as much – that is, by no less than 13 points – in Liberal Democrat MPs’ constituencies as elsewhere. In short, there was little consistent sign of the ability of Liberal Democrats’ personal popularity to stem the receding tide"
Curtice is usually a respected voice here at PB. Strange that you become so dismissive of him when he says something you do not agree with.
@MaxPB - Well UKIP won't do well in Oxford, I think that is fair to say. However in Rochdale they picked up 17% of the vote, but their support was spread too evenly. Give them time to hone their tactics and message to key wards like they did in Rotherham and I think they could do well in terms of seats. They won a sizeable proportion of the popular vote there so they clearly had some impact.
Yup, as I say below, in parts of the Labour heartlands UKIP has become the de facto party for anti-Labour supporters to vote for. That is indeed substantial progress. The next bit will be harder, though, and will depend on how UKIP develops its policies and also how Labour responds to the challenge it faces. I am not sure that child abuse will be a long term factor for voters unless Labour fails to learn the lessons it should. And if it doesn't it will deserve all it gets.
A fair point but would present the trademark/IP lawyers with something of a problem. If RBS was forced to drop the Royal title then it would simply become Bank of Scotland but there is already another bank called Bank of Scotland. I am not sure what could be done about it as RBS would not have opted to drop the Royal prefix by choice but had it taken away from them by official diktat.
They could use any other name. I imagine they would rename themselves RBS, with the name having no meaning, ala TSB.
A fair point but would present the trademark/IP lawyers with something of a problem. If RBS was forced to drop the Royal title then it would simply become Bank of Scotland but there is already another bank called Bank of Scotland. I am not sure what could be done about it as RBS would not have opted to drop the Royal prefix by choice but had it taken away from them by official diktat.
Yes, in one of their numerous mergers they said openly that among the choices of name they chose the one that would enable them to keep the Royal tag. I absolutely don't see why Royalty puts up with it, and what else they would choose to call themselves is very much their problem.
On another subject, the Observer reports of UKIP's plans: "Among the seats it is likely to target are a batch in Essex, plus Rotherham, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Portsmouth South, Eastleigh, Broxtowe, North Thanet and South Thanet."
That might be worth a thread after tonight. I suspect they'll win all of them in the Euros; in 2015, we shall see. I assume that Broxtowe is in there because it has unusually strongly pro-European Tory and Labour candidates, and a vigorous UKIP effort would certainly make it an interesting three-cornered election.
Agreed , the most sense I have heard from anyone on the issue.
So what sense did he promote
Malcolm
To paraphrase him he said if you believe in independence vote for it , the same for staying in the UK.
Do not vote for if you think you will be slightly better of either way, as listening to lying actors and politicians who probably will not be there in 10 years, is not the best judge , go with your own principles for better or worse.
If I live in Scotland I would vote yes for independence , but would want true independence , an elected head of state , and our own independent bank.
Yorkcity , thanks for that , So very sensible , we have to vote YES to have any chance of his wish for elected head of state and independent bank , they will surely come if not instantly. You cannot achieve everything on day one. I am amazed that anyone could be swayed by just what politicians or actors say but unfortunately it is reality that many people are like sheep.
Very true Malcolm.
I hope Scotland takes the first step to Independence in September. As you say, you cant achieve everything on day one. I worked there previously and have friends and family there and wish them all the best.
Despite a dreadful vote share, the Lib Dems still managed a reasonable number of wins. Sutton, Sheffield Hallam, Leeds NW, Birmingham Yardley, look secure. Personal votes would likely see Simon Hughes, Vince Cable and Lynne Featherstone hold on. Manchester Withington and Brent Central are write-offs.
Hornsey and Wood Green does not look too promising on Thursday's results either.
They finished 11% behind Labour, in the constituency, but I think Lynne Featherstone's personal vote should enable them to hold on this time.
It'll be touch and go. She came from nowhere to beat a Labour MP with a personal vote in 2005. It would not be a huge surprise if the reverse happened next year.
I think it's stretching things somewhat to suggest that Barbara Roche had a (positive) personal vote!
I think we may have been talking at cross-purposes. I assumed you meant the grooming cases. The absolute priority with these cases is to (a) make sure we investigate them fully and (b) put people in prison for every case of rape and abuse, with no concurrent sentencing. If you raped a poor kid ten times, then you should get ten sentences, served one after another. If that means these scumbags die in prison, then good. Oh, and the prison sentences should be in the harshest available prisons, not this open prison or holiday camp nonsense.
... The party argued – not for the first time – that it was often performing better in places where it already has a sitting MP and thus has a strong base of local support. ..... on average Liberal Democrat support was down just as much – that is, by no less than 13 points – in Liberal Democrat MPs’ constituencies as elsewhere. In short, there was little consistent sign of the ability of Liberal Democrats’ personal popularity to stem the receding tide. And next year their own seats will be on the line.
That is a useful insight. As antifrank says, in parts the LDs seem to have reached a tipping point where incumbency does not work. In parts? Their local election vote share on thursday was 11%. In 2010 it was 26%.
For another example of cover-up, I'm trying to remind myself of that guy that had to resign for saying electoral fraud in the UK was mainly done by Asians. Can somebody remind me of his name?
The 1/3 on Nick Clegg staying till 2015 is an outstanding price and I find that Paddy Power will allow me nearly £100 on that if you got through the "Lib Dem leader at the next election" market.
But the price may get better in the next few days, and I'm greedy. So I'll wait before placing that bet.
Hills are
8/11 Clegg to have gone by Jan 1st 2016 EVS to remain
This is obviously a "thing" of yours. Whilst I agree that the Council Tax needs more bands (at least in London) I remain to be convinced that it's otherwise so bad as to warrant the upheaval you propose.
As to London property prices (and I write as a tenant) I doubt there is any administrative solution - don't markets correct themselves? I'm always being told they do... by people who have never heard of Ricardo and who think there are only two factors of production...
The London housing market is working fine from a market perspective. It's just that the demand from international investors has driven prices to a level where most UK nationals (including myself) are not able to afford a house in the area they want.
There may be a case to intervene because of the social consequences (and possibly the economic side effects) but there's not really a case to intervene because of market failure (except in the government constraints on the availability of supply)
If the UK were to exit EU, would it affect the London market ? Adversely or beneficially ?
The 1/3 on Nick Clegg staying till 2015 is an outstanding price and I find that Paddy Power will allow me nearly £100 on that if you got through the "Lib Dem leader at the next election" market.
But the price may get better in the next few days, and I'm greedy. So I'll wait before placing that bet.
Hills are
8/11 Clegg to have gone by Jan 1st 2016 EVS to remain
So when UKIP supporters on here and elsewhere say that those accusing the part of racism are lefties we should ignore that? And we should also ignore the frequent claims that the Tories, the LDs and Labour are all part of a sneering, metropolitan, leftist elite? What bits of what UKIP says should we take notice of then?
You're looping in very boring circles.
ve more than 1 characteristic , and voters can vote for more than 1 reason.
I have no desire - feigned or otherwise - to equate a vote for Labour, the LDs or the Tories with a vote for the establishment. But UKIP and its supporters frame the choice on those terms - UKIP is the party of the silent majority, the establishment parties are sneering, metropolitan and on the left. And we have seen you have claimed that those who claim UKIP is racist are left-wing.
So let's put it another way: if UKIP does represent the silent majority and the traditional big three are the voice of a leftist, sneering, metropolitan, out of touch elite, why in the privacy of the ballot booth, where no-one knows how you vote, have so many voters failed to heed what UKIP says?
Quite. A major event, certainly, worthy of celebration from its supproters, possibly transformative, but a majority still vote for the same old same old.
No, I'm afraid it doesn't. If chronic overcrowding and people trafficking are so widespread, why aren't people noticing it? And if they are noticing it, why aren't they voting to do something about it?
Some people are noticing it, and it is picked up in local newspapers. However the national media oligarchy, dominated by the BBC, find it not really acceptable for polite society and don't report it, unless buried deep in local segments. Meanwhile, those that talk about such things on mainstream message boards are vilified as being bigots with obsessions, and, if that doesn't silence them, actually banned from discussing it. This happened to me on another topic on this very board. (This is something difficult for me to go further with, as I have been banned from alluding to it too much, but no moderator has never clarified what the line is, despite numerous questions. It's possible I will get a day's ban just for saying this much, so apologies if I go silent.) The overall effect is that the broader public doesn't know the scale of some of these issues, and, being low-information, assume that those animated about such things must be prejudiced rather than believe the facts aren't being reported.
Forgive me, but all I see here is 'Whinge whinge, hate BBC, whinge whinge', which is a shame, because just a little moderation in making the same points could be worthwhile.
I think we may have been talking at cross-purposes. I assumed you meant the grooming cases. The absolute priority with these cases is to (a) make sure we investigate them fully and (b) put people in prison for every case of rape and abuse, with no concurrent sentencing. If you raped a poor kid ten times, then you should get ten sentences, served one after another. If that means these scumbags die in prison, then good. Oh, and the prison sentences should be in the harshest available prisons, not this open prison or holiday camp nonsense.
Comments
The Euro elections are the voters ultimate kick the government up the arse with no consequences vote.
It's Farage's last hurrah before Ukip's balloon bursts at the GE.
Whilst many of the more excitably elements of the left believe voting for UKIP (who are, of course, racist) makes you a racist.
This is not a universally shared extension - I think you'll struggle to find many UKIP figures who believe that voting for a mainstream party fundamentally identifies those people with everything they stand for.
For all their hype UKIP have only a few hundred councilors and some very ineffective MEPs, we shall see if the new ones are capable when sobriety returns.
I suspect not.
You should watch it
My dear Herders I think the best way to view the LibDems and the GE is in terms of selective hot spots dotted through the country but outwith of which they now enjoy very poor visibility, unlike from Feb74 - Apr92 where the occasional hot spots were accompanied by a very wide tranche of warm spots.
The question is will the hot spots be hot enough ?
What I also don't get is why UKIP should not be judged against the claims it makes. Its consistent theme is that the main parties represent a liberal-left, sneering establishment that is imposing its views on a reluctant electorate. In your own post you say that people who state that UKIP is racist are on the left - so putting many Tories who have made that claim on the left. Thus, what should we conclude when the electorate actually ends up giving most of its votes to the establishment parties?
The question is this. Aside from the bluster and spin, will the LibDem membership tolerate the destruction of decades of local development? 41% of LibDem councillors up for eleaction lost on Thursday. With similar results last year. And the year before that. And the year before that.
Ed Miliband defeated his brother David, among other
people, to become Labour's leader four years ago. Who
do you think would be a better Labour Party leader
today?
EdM: 11 (Labour VI:28)
DM: 41 (Labour VI:40)
Neither: 25 (Labour VI:10)
DK: 22 (Labour VI:23)
I've predicted Ukip will win tonight - enjoy the moment, reality will return next May.
2-4 seat for the LibDems seems to be the range.
Aand another 11% expect EU membership after an interim period.
You might like to see another example of unionist arithmetic here - which raises some very serious questions about HM Treasury's competence or political bias
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/new-milestone-treasury-scare-story-doesnt-add-up.24313722
I'm more interested in waiting to see the Euro results tonight. They could be very interesting indeed.
There is no silent majority for UKIP's entire package (comprising policies and the lingering fear amongst many voters that its a wasted vote, or that they're just a pack of jokers). But there's any awful lot of people voting for other parties who agree with elements of what they're saying (of course, just like with other parties). So excuse me if I find your false dichotomy as a rather silly attempt to score debating points.
And with that, I'm off for a cycle with the hop of dodging the rain.
That answers your question, incidentally Southam.
Here is one photo:
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/International/ap_india_railway_thg_130226_wblog.jpg
That may be more popular than men, if you know what I mean ...
Nudge. Nudge. Say no more.
Carlotta will be frothing next week re the fake treasury figures that will show us to be totally dependent on London. They will again lie through their teeth using the paid lackeys of the civil service. They have us down as needing 118 government departments when UK managesto run up £1.5 trillion in debt with just 24.
Carlotta is a Tory troll who will punt any lie possible to feed her hatred of SNP and Scotland.
More likely I believe is a formal break-up of the coalition sooner rather than later and probably this year to convince Clegg's MPs, LibDem voters and the country at large that he has the necessary spheres. Plus there's very little meaningful legislation to enact before the GE anyway.
As recently as late October 2013, I was betting on a coalition break-up during 2014 at odds of 5/1 with Paddy Power, but they since appear to have taken down this market.
Right now, I'd be interested in increasing my bet at half those odds.
Off topic: Local elections in NI. Summary.
-Unionists are a bit hacked off, just a bit, not hugely but a bit with the status quo. Unionists vote down the card in an STV system. Smaller parties, particularly on the Unionist side did alright.
-Nationalism is becoming ever more like unionists in its voting levels. Nationalists still don't quite vote down the card like unionists (either way SDLP>SF and SF>SDLP) and possibly never will.
-UKIP actually won more than one seat.
I suspect the left/redistribution side benefits because these objectives are combined into a single tax structure. If it was clear that "tax A" (e.g. a poll tax) was funding government spending, while "tax B" (e.g. income tax) was simply to redistribute wealth there would be a lot more push back against redistribution.
But it's the same problem as merging NICs and income tax: while it may make logical sense the losers scream louder than the winners, so it becomes politically very difficult
It is not permitted to accuse a BPC registered pollster of engaging in smearing or push polling, or anything that impugns their integrity.
It is ok to criticise their methodologies, but not in the manner of the above.
Repeat offenders will have their posting privileges removed.
There is no disconnect between saying those parties are XXX YYY establishment, whilst not believing that all their voters are the same thing. If you look back to the start of this, the only root of this discussion is your feigned desire to suggest that votes for those parties automatically endorse the 'metropolitan liberal establishment'. We both know that is not the case. It is perfectly possible for that to be the case and for people to still vote for them for other reasons, whilst disliking that element of them. Things can have more than 1 characteristic , and voters can vote for more than 1 reason.
Below the radar, the Greens are finally picking up some of the protest votes. Does anyone know what happened in Norwich South ?
More like the steady deflation of a slow puncture.
Anyone who has ridden an elevator with an elderly kipper will recognise the symptoms.
A) The 3 westminster parties are a metropolital liberal establishment.
C) A Majority have voted for those 3 parties.
You're setting this up to suggest that either -
D) we have a majority in favour of the postulated metropolitan liberal establishment.
OR
E) Statement A) is incorrect.
I am refusing to go along because statement
It's perfectly possible for people to think these parties are out of touch but still vote for them for a variety of different reasons. Your insistence that UKIP using B as an attempt to drum up votes in an election means they must be endorsing it as absolute truth is faux naive student debating at its very worst.
To paraphrase him he said if you believe in independence vote for it , the same for staying in the UK.
Do not vote for if you think you will be slightly better of either way, as listening to lying actors and politicians who probably will not be there in 10 years, is not the best judge , go with your own principles for better or worse.
If I live in Scotland I would vote yes for independence , but would want true independence , an elected head of state , and our own independent bank.
So let's put it another way: if UKIP does represent the silent majority and the traditional big three are the voice of a leftist, sneering, metropolitan, out of touch elite, why in the privacy of the ballot booth, where no-one knows how you vote, have so many voters failed to heed what UKIP says?
There may be a case to intervene because of the social consequences (and possibly the economic side effects) but there's not really a case to intervene because of market failure (except in the government constraints on the availability of supply)
However waht is really interesting about those figures is thev extent to whyich voters of all parties apparently agree with Farage (with the possible exception of the Lib-Dems but even there there is a 25% difference).
Although there is a plurality of support for the Romanians by supporters for all three main parties the figures do indicate that a substantial minority in each case would be uncomfortable with our putative Romanian family.
Big difference
Incumbency did not save the FPTP Lib Dem MSPs at the Scottish GE in 2011. They lost in:
Aberdeen South & North Kincardine
Aberdeenshire West
Caithness, Sutherland & Ross
Dunfermline
Edinburgh Southern
Edinburgh Western
Fife North East
Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch
It was a total wipeout on the mainland. The SLDs only held on to two FPTP seats:
Orkney
Shetland
I've read enough of your posts to know you're bright enough to tell the difference between a partial and complete set, so please stop suggesting that because I said some left wing people think UKIP are racist, I said anyone accusing UKIP of being racist is leftwing. Because I clearly didn't, and pretending I did does not help me believe you're discussing this in good faith.
The important part of that sentence, which you keep refusing to engage with, is that I was denying that people should be defined by who they voted for. I used UKIP and racism as a topical example. People from across the spectrum have made that accusation. As it happens, I do believe those on the left are more likely to make the leap from UKIP as racists to UKIP voters as racists, but that is neither here nor there.
So very sensible , we have to vote YES to have any chance of his wish for elected head of state and independent bank , they will surely come if not instantly. You cannot achieve everything on day one. I am amazed that anyone could be swayed by just what politicians or actors say but unfortunately it is reality that many people are like sheep.
"Whilst many of the more excitably elements of the left believe voting for UKIP (who are, of course, racist) makes you a racist"
to mean that you thought anyone accusing UKIP voters of racism was left wing. It was a genuine misunderstanding. I agree with you that UKIP voters have been accused of racism by people from across the political spectrum.
The grooming gangs do finally seem to be being exposed and imprisoned, and I agree that a national inquiry into the inactions of police and social services in the past is needed.
The groomers were very rarely from the EU, and often were British born Muslims. Leaving the EU will do nothing to resolve the problem. Attitudes to sexual behavior, drinking, drugs and family breakdown in targeted communities as well as in the subsections of the community doing the targeting need addressing. We have to ask how these young girls came to be in the care of social services in the first place.
The reason for granting the charter was to provide a Hannoverian/Whig alternative to the Bank of Scotland which was widely suspected of raising funds for the Jacobite cause.
From its history we may determine that although Nick Palmer may bank with the RBoS Group, Jack W is most unlikely to have been lured into entrusting them with his funds.
Apart from that gaping whole in your thinking that was a searing analysis.
But it was not my analysis Jack, it was John Curtice's analysis today:
- "on average Liberal Democrat support was down just as much – that is, by no less than 13 points – in Liberal Democrat MPs’ constituencies as elsewhere. In short, there was little consistent sign of the ability of Liberal Democrats’ personal popularity to stem the receding tide"
Curtice is usually a respected voice here at PB. Strange that you become so dismissive of him when he says something you do not agree with.
Yup, as I say below, in parts of the Labour heartlands UKIP has become the de facto party for anti-Labour supporters to vote for. That is indeed substantial progress. The next bit will be harder, though, and will depend on how UKIP develops its policies and also how Labour responds to the challenge it faces. I am not sure that child abuse will be a long term factor for voters unless Labour fails to learn the lessons it should. And if it doesn't it will deserve all it gets.
A large majority of Kippers have a problem with a Romanian family.
Not a group of Romanian men.
Draw from that whatever conclusions you want.
On another subject, the Observer reports of UKIP's plans:
"Among the seats it is likely to target are a batch in Essex, plus Rotherham, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Portsmouth South, Eastleigh, Broxtowe, North Thanet and South Thanet."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/24/ukip-hitlist-20-seats-commons
That might be worth a thread after tonight. I suspect they'll win all of them in the Euros; in 2015, we shall see. I assume that Broxtowe is in there because it has unusually strongly pro-European Tory and Labour candidates, and a vigorous UKIP effort would certainly make it an interesting three-cornered election.
The Anoraks Party should lobby to stop this "report at the same time" nonsense...we want a slow flood of results coming in all day
Counting start at noon
I hope Scotland takes the first step to Independence in September.
As you say, you cant achieve everything on day one.
I worked there previously and have friends and family there and wish them all the best.
I think we may have been talking at cross-purposes. I assumed you meant the grooming cases. The absolute priority with these cases is to (a) make sure we investigate them fully and (b) put people in prison for every case of rape and abuse, with no concurrent sentencing. If you raped a poor kid ten times, then you should get ten sentences, served one after another. If that means these scumbags die in prison, then good. Oh, and the prison sentences should be in the harshest available prisons, not this open prison or holiday camp nonsense.
Watch the interview.
The statement above so spectacularly misses his point it's shameful.
In parts? Their local election vote share on thursday was 11%. In 2010 it was 26%.
Happy Towel Day everyone.
8/11 Clegg to have gone by Jan 1st 2016
EVS to remain
(or anyone else for that matter)
Can you do multiple bets on a party to win constituencies at a GE or would they be related contingencies?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27563903
If the UK were to exit EU, would it affect the London market ? Adversely or beneficially ?
But the Hungarians that Mr Jones is concerned about seem to be an unrelated issue.