I am not trying to say you should be more controversial Nick, I just think that the childishness of political reporting means we get more emphasis on presentation and personality than actual policy. 24 hour media heightens this and turns politicians into bland clones. We get what we deserve I suppose.
Absolutely agree with that. My experience is that it's VERY easy to get media coverage if you offer some off-beat remark that makes either you or someone else look silly, and almost impossible to get media coverage for any serious argument. The media essentially see themselves as a branch of the entertainment industry.
There IS an audience out there for serious discussion. I've noticed with my local blogs (which 10% of constituents subscribe to) that I get near-zilch reaction if I just do a routine partisan piece, but lots of replies if I discuss the pros and cons of changes in policy. It's odd that the media doesn't have an organ that really talks to that market - the Independent started off with that pitch, but ended up as partisan and hectoring as anyone (I often agree with them but it's still a rubbish way to present the issues). Parts of the American media (e.g. USA Today) do a better job of separating "what the newspaper's proprietor wants" from a balanced discussion, as do many Continental papers.
My bold. I completely agree with that and I would love a non partisan broadsheet to subscribe to. Unfortunately there's nothing in the UK.
Tory posters want Labour to work hard in Newark to split the anti-Conservative vote, allowing them to retain the seat. The last thing they want is for us to give UKIP a free shot. Sorry folks, we're not falling for it.
"Blair projects a total authenticity that none of the current crop of leaders have"
The number of people that believe Blair displays "authenticity" must be in single digits. He is widely accepted as the most spin heavy UK politician for... well, ever.
It's like saying that the Devil displays a keen grasp of ethics.
Tory posters want Labour to work hard in Newark to split the anti-Conservative vote, allowing them to retain the seat. The last thing they want is for us to give UKIP a free shot. Sorry folks, we're not falling for it.
Err.... shouldn't labour be the anti-conservative vote? Look at 2010.
Of course, all bear baiting aside, if Labour don't spend money on places like Newark as a one off and it becomes obvious they can't win in 2015, then they are looking at their 2009 core vote of 15.6% as the bottom of their bottomless pit! and third place nationally. Don't say you weren't warned.
More than one in three employees in Wales (35.4%) belonged to a union last year, according to the Office for National Statistics – significantly more than the UK average of 25.6%. This compared to membership rates of 32% in Scotland and just 24.1% in England.
However, the researchers note that while membership levels fell by around seven percentage points in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland between 1995 and 2013, there was approximately a nine point slump in Wales.
In 1995, 44.3% of employees in Wales belonged to a union. Membership levels hit the lowest point in 2012 when just one in three Welsh workers (33%) were in a union.
Tory posters want Labour to work hard in Newark to split the anti-Conservative vote, allowing them to retain the seat. The last thing they want is for us to give UKIP a free shot. Sorry folks, we're not falling for it.
Already conceding official opposition to UKIP from second place. 15.6%, here we come!
"the idea that the UK could strike a better bargain, negotiating solo with the behemoth economies of China, India, Brazil and the US, rather than leveraging the collective bargaining power of the largest global bloc, is a fiction."
That only makes sense if you're all singing from the same hymn sheet. But us and the French never do. So the collective bargaining power of having a large bloc is more than negated by the fact that half of our table doesn't have our interests at heart.
"Immigration, looked at calmly and over time, has been a huge net benefit to the UK."
Only if you're hand-wringing lefty that thinks Wembley is wonderful for its "diversity". Most of the public recognise that mass unskilled immigration has put huge pressure on house prices, caused a shortage of school places, made good paying work more difficult for the natives, damaged social cohesion and also created a string of problems like gun crime, FGM and home grown terrorism.
These are the same bog standard arguments that are commonly trotted out on here and don't bear scrutiny. Nothing "quality" about them.
Mass immigration is good for the rich and bad for the poor. If any government really put poorest people in their own country ahead of anyone else they would stop the import of cheap unskilled labour, regardless of political dogma.
But seeing as we have controlled immigration from Africa, how has the FGM problem become so big?
The idea that immigration from Africa is "controlled" is a stretch. If we were looking to focus on skilled, high-quality migration, why would we have 100,000 people here from Somalia, an anarchic country virtually without any schooling system at all.
This is FPP. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats. It really is that simple.
What else is going on that Labour need to commit resources to? I can see the sense in prioritising resources in a national election when there won't be enough people or money to do everything one might like. However, if Labour feels it doesn't have the resources to properly fight a by-election then that surely tells us something about the state of the party.
Perhaps it is so skint it must husband its cash for 2015. Perhaps it is just not interested in trying to win the votes of, quite literally, middle England, which is even more revealing considering its leader is fond of banging on about his one nation vision.
"the idea that the UK could strike a better bargain, negotiating solo with the behemoth economies of China, India, Brazil and the US, rather than leveraging the collective bargaining power of the largest global bloc, is a fiction."
That only makes sense if you're all singing from the same hymn sheet. But us and the French never do. So the collective bargaining power of having a large bloc is more than negated by the fact that half of our table doesn't have our interests at heart.
"Immigration, looked at calmly and over time, has been a huge net benefit to the UK."
Only if you're hand-wringing lefty that thinks Wembley is wonderful for its "diversity". Most of the public recognise that mass unskilled immigration has put huge pressure on house prices, caused a shortage of school places, made good paying work more difficult for the natives, damaged social cohesion and also created a string of problems like gun crime, FGM and home grown terrorism.
These are the same bog standard arguments that are commonly trotted out on here and don't bear scrutiny. Nothing "quality" about them.
Wembley is a great place. I think you meant Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets. Wembley, Southall and Harrow are mostly Indian (Hindu, Sikh and Muslim, but from India or East Africa) and most people are very well integrated into British society, except the original generation who are all dying off now. My parents generation and my generation have very high levels of employment and business ownership. To single Wembley out as an area of how immigration is not beneficial is completely wrong. I hope it was just a mistake.
Ed.s going through the motions a little with ex-Labour Ukip voters ... "Yes, we're listening and we understand your pain, but ..."
Listening is OK, but Gordon Listened to Mrs Duffy, and as soon as she was out of earshot ... "She's a bigoted woman."
Probably a step forward to listen but not likely to be too effective on its own. So I suspect it will soon be back to demonisation. Interesting times indeed.
Surprised more hasnt been made of this from Sadiq Khan
Too little, too late. Uncontrolled borders from poor countries will always adversely affect the working class. Stop it and forget about about smart arse, twisty turny words,. The working class voters Labour are losing dont want benefit handouts, tax credits or the people taking their jobs to speak English, they want the opportunity to earn a decent wage and provide for their family
"Wages have barely increased whilst the cost of everything - from housing to energy and food - has rocketed.
And in too many places immigration has driven down local wages.
I understand why people think that politicians do little to help them.
Take immigration. In the past, we were too quick to dismiss concerns about immigration, or even worse - accused people of prejudice.
We all remember Gillian Duffy. We were wrong. We are sorry."
For Eurocrats, France is now the weakest link in the chain. FN are enjoying the perfect storm of a Socialist President who is pitifully inept, and a UMP that's being destroyed by funding scandals. I think that Le Pen could beat Hollande in a run-off.
I am not trying to say you should be more controversial Nick, I just think that the childishness of political reporting means we get more emphasis on presentation and personality than actual policy. 24 hour media heightens this and turns politicians into bland clones. We get what we deserve I suppose.
Absolutely agree with that. My experience is that it's VERY easy to get media coverage if you offer some off-beat remark that makes either you or someone else look silly, and almost impossible to get media coverage for any serious argument. The media essentially see themselves as a branch of the entertainment industry.
There IS an audience out there for serious discussion. I've noticed with my local blogs (which 10% of constituents subscribe to) that I get near-zilch reaction if I just do a routine partisan piece, but lots of replies if I discuss the pros and cons of changes in policy. It's odd that the media doesn't have an organ that really talks to that market - the Independent started off with that pitch, but ended up as partisan and hectoring as anyone (I often agree with them but it's still a rubbish way to present the issues). Parts of the American media (e.g. USA Today) do a better job of separating "what the newspaper's proprietor wants" from a balanced discussion, as do many Continental papers.
My bold. I completely agree with that and I would love a non partisan broadsheet to subscribe to. Unfortunately there's nothing in the UK.
The Financial Times does this, don't they?
The FT, non-partisan? You're havin a larf!
Which party do you think they're biased towards?
They are far too left wing for me and they lurve the Euro
This is FPP. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats. It really is that simple.
What else is going on that Labour need to commit resources to? I can see the sense in prioritising resources in a national election when they won't be enough people or money to do everything one might like. However, if Labour feels it does have the resources to properly fight a by-election then that surely tells us something about the state of the party.
Perhaps it is so skint it must husband its cash for 2015. Perhaps it is just not interested in trying to win the votes of, quite literally, middle England, which is even more revealing considering its leader is fond of banging on about his one nation vision.
You'd think that Newark was exactly the kind of seat, with plenty of alleged 'Squeezed Middles', that Labour would be aiming to win.
Strange that they've given up on it, and Dorky Ed's shills are peddling excuses.
I am not trying to say you should be more controversial Nick, I just think that the childishness of political reporting means we get more emphasis on presentation and personality than actual policy. 24 hour media heightens this and turns politicians into bland clones. We get what we deserve I suppose.
Absolutely agree with that. My experience is that it's VERY easy to get media coverage if you offer some off-beat remark that makes either you or someone else look silly, and almost impossible to get media coverage for any serious argument. The media essentially see themselves as a branch of the entertainment industry.
There IS an audience out there for serious discussion. I've noticed with my local blogs (which 10% of constituents subscribe to) that I get near-zilch reaction if I just do a routine partisan piece, but lots of replies if I discuss the pros and cons of changes in policy. It's odd that the media doesn't have an organ that really talks to that market - the Independent started off with that pitch, but ended up as partisan and hectoring as anyone (I often agree with them but it's still a rubbish way to present the issues). Parts of the American media (e.g. USA Today) do a better job of separating "what the newspaper's proprietor wants" from a balanced discussion, as do many Continental papers.
My bold. I completely agree with that and I would love a non partisan broadsheet to subscribe to. Unfortunately there's nothing in the UK.
The Financial Times does this, don't they?
The FT, non-partisan? You're havin a larf!
Which party do you think they're biased towards?
They are far too left wing for me and they lurve the Euro
They generally have a range of views from both right and left. I accept they are very Europhile, but that's not what partisan means.
For Eurocrats, France is now the weakest link in the chain. FN are enjoying the perfect storm of a Socialist President who is pitifully inept, and a UMP that's being destroyed by funding scandals. I think that Le Pen could beat Hollande in a run-off.
Right, Im off to clean the pub. By the time I return, what remains of the WWC will have deserted Labour and their torrid hand wringing luvvies will start to disappear like snow off a dyke. 15.6%, they are coming for you.
Brandy Snap @Brandy_Snap 9m More @Rowland72James Ha! Thought you'd appreciate this page from an old Ladybird Classics book… =] pic.twitter.com/qaoGDY9d2J
For Eurocrats, France is now the weakest link in the chain. FN are enjoying the perfect storm of a Socialist President who is pitifully inept, and a UMP that's being destroyed by funding scandals. I think that Le Pen could beat Hollande in a run-off.
Hollande wouldn't get to a run-off.
He could if the UMP vote is split by two or more candidates. The PS vote will be united as will the FN vote. Its not out of the realms of possibility that it could be a Hollande vs Le Pen run off.
Ed.s going through the motions a little with ex-Labour Ukip voters ... "Yes, we're listening and we understand your pain, but ..."
Listening is OK, but Gordon Listened to Mrs Duffy, and as soon as she was out of earshot ... "She's a bigoted woman."
Probably a step forward to listen but not likely to be too effective on its own. So I suspect it will soon be back to demonisation. Interesting times indeed.
Surprised more hasnt been made of this from Sadiq Khan
Too little, too late. Uncontrolled borders from poor countries will always adversely affect the working class. Stop it and forget about about smart arse, twisty turny words,. The working class voters Labour are losing dont want benefit handouts, tax credits or the people taking their jobs to speak English, they want the opportunity to earn a decent wage and provide for their family
"Wages have barely increased whilst the cost of everything - from housing to energy and food - has rocketed.
And in too many places immigration has driven down local wages.
I understand why people think that politicians do little to help them.
Take immigration. In the past, we were too quick to dismiss concerns about immigration, or even worse - accused people of prejudice.
We all remember Gillian Duffy. We were wrong. We are sorry."
Newark...... Labours problem is that it might seem tempting to take their foot off the gas, and if UKIP take it, enjoy the short term embarrassment and panic in the gvt, but if they go backwards it makes UKIP look like the opposition in waiting. It's no good for Ed to win 250 seats and see UKIP Hoover up loads of Tory targets, because UKIP won't support an Ed premiership, they will support a Dave premiership and an in/out.
Agree that Labour can't be expected to gain the seat but they should be gaining votes. Losing votes to UKIP would lead to more problems for Ed
Not sure if UKIP would do a deal with the Tories. The experience of the LDs is bound to make other parties more wary of entering coalition.
Wembley is a great place. I think you meant Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets. Wembley, Southall and Harrow are mostly Indian (Hindu, Sikh and Muslim, but from India or East Africa) and most people are very well integrated into British society, except the original generation who are all dying off now. My parents generation and my generation have very high levels of employment and business ownership. To single Wembley out as an area of how immigration is not beneficial is completely wrong. I hope it was just a mistake.
The area around Brent Park and south of it has a lot of deprivation, though maybe you don't count that as Wembley. Yes there are worse areas, but I try not to always single out the same places in my discussion.
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
Wembley is a great place. I think you meant Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets. Wembley, Southall and Harrow are mostly Indian (Hindu, Sikh and Muslim, but from India or East Africa) and most people are very well integrated into British society, except the original generation who are all dying off now. My parents generation and my generation have very high levels of employment and business ownership. To single Wembley out as an area of how immigration is not beneficial is completely wrong. I hope it was just a mistake.
The area around Brent Park and south of it has a lot of deprivation, though maybe you don't count that as Wembley. Yes there are worse areas, but I try not to always single out the same places in my discussion.
That's not Wembley, it's Brent. Wembley is a very wealthy area.
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
And as yet none of the Tory posters have denied that this is their strategy.
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
And as yet none of the Tory posters have denied that this is their strategy.
You really think Labour High Command are going to be swayed by comments on pb.com?
Wembley is a great place. I think you meant Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets. Wembley, Southall and Harrow are mostly Indian (Hindu, Sikh and Muslim, but from India or East Africa) and most people are very well integrated into British society, except the original generation who are all dying off now. My parents generation and my generation have very high levels of employment and business ownership. To single Wembley out as an area of how immigration is not beneficial is completely wrong. I hope it was just a mistake.
The area around Brent Park and south of it has a lot of deprivation, though maybe you don't count that as Wembley. Yes there are worse areas, but I try not to always single out the same places in my discussion.
Kenton, Sudbury, and Northwick Park are nice, although when we moved in 2007, they were increasingly plagued by gang-related violence. Places like Wembley Central, Alperton, and Stonebridge Park are pretty horrible. Again, when we left, violence by Somali gangs in Wembley Central was a real problem.
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
But Mr. Fett, I am not a Conservative. Nor am I openly encouraging your party to do anything. I merely point out that by refusing to go for a proper campaign in a by-election in a middle England seat Labour is showing a disconnect between its actions and the rhetoric of its leader. If the fact that Labour are too skint to run a by-election campaign it might be better to say that openly and honestly.
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
And as yet none of the Tory posters have denied that this is their strategy.
Anyone hoping to influence how parties campaign in this by-election by typing comments on this website has seriously misjudged how to make an impact in politics.
"the idea that the UK could strike a better bargain, negotiating solo with the behemoth economies of China, India, Brazil and the US, rather than leveraging the collective bargaining power of the largest global bloc, is a fiction."
That only makes sense if you're all singing from the same hymn sheet. But us and the French never do. So the collective bargaining power of having a large bloc is more than negated by the fact that half of our table doesn't have our interests at heart.
"Immigration, looked at calmly and over time, has been a huge net benefit to the UK."
Only if you're hand-wringing lefty that thinks Wembley is wonderful for its "diversity". Most of the public recognise that mass unskilled immigration has put huge pressure on house prices, caused a shortage of school places, made good paying work more difficult for the natives, damaged social cohesion and also created a string of problems like gun crime, FGM and home grown terrorism.
These are the same bog standard arguments that are commonly trotted out on here and don't bear scrutiny. Nothing "quality" about them.
Mass immigration is good for the rich and bad for the poor. If any government really put poorest people in their own country ahead of anyone else they would stop the import of cheap unskilled labour, regardless of political dogma.
But seeing as we have controlled immigration from Africa, how has the FGM problem become so big?
The idea that immigration from Africa is "controlled" is a stretch. If we were looking to focus on skilled, high-quality migration, why would we have 100,000 people here from Somalia, an anarchic country virtually without any schooling system at all.
I am not being sarcy or saying it is a bad thing... but how has that happened if we have controlled immigration from Africa?
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
But I'm not convinced that that is what your opponent least wants you to do? This way, the Tories only have to fight on 1 flank, and not 2, whereas in a genuine 3 way fight there is the potential for them to get stuck facing both directions at once.
So, let's try to understand Labour's strategy in Newark. Ed Miliband campaigning in Newark, and Yvette canvassing, and every other shadow cabinet member asked to take part, and Douglas Alexander saying "Our next priority is the Newark by-election...We have a great local candidate in Michael Payne who is holding the Conservative Party’s feet to the fire", is all just a cunning Labour ploy intended to drive possible Labour voters to UKIP?
And what should be written in letters of fire 10ft high... "Only David Cameron and the Tories can give us a referendum on Europe in 2017"
The pressure that UKIP has applied is absolutely super and it keeps Cameron's mind firmly fixed on his promise. Just imagine if Labour had topped the Euro poll - they had ruled out a referendum, and even worse, if UKIP had come 4th behind the LD's. In that scenario I think you'd find the referendum promise being de-emphasised and diluted.
Quite right. I do think Cameron is pretty pro-Europe at heart, also that he's frustrated with it. Inevitably there may come a point when he really does start to think that 'out' might not be so awful after all. He will certainly need that mindset, and convince others that he does so, in order to stand the smallest chance of getting the breadth and scope of reform needed. I don't really believe that he (or anyone else) can pull that off, but I'm certainly keen to see him try. I'd so much prefer to vote to stay in a radically reformed EU than to vote to leave.
What baffles me about Cameron - perhaps it's a politics thing - is that surely if he wants to be taken seriously by Yerp he should serve notice under Article whatever it is?
When I started my working life, I was a bit bemused that a customer we had finally agreed a 3-year supply deal with instantly, like the next day, served us with notice to quit after 3 years. I wondered to my area manager why they had done that, as in, was it somehow hostile? And he just said No, it's what you do; it preserves their position and reminds us that the default outcome is we lose their business unless we work to keep it.
The rational sequence is surely
> invoke said Article (which he could perfectly well do now); > win election; > start renegotiation on the basis that if he doesn't get what he wants the Brexit process is underway and will play out; > if he does get what he wants, the referendum question is then "do we accept the new terms and withdraw the notice to quit?"
Yes then means stay in; No means quit.
He's apparently planning to renegotiate with people he can't threaten (in the diplomatic sense), which seems doomed to failure.
Wembley is a great place. I think you meant Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets. Wembley, Southall and Harrow are mostly Indian (Hindu, Sikh and Muslim, but from India or East Africa) and most people are very well integrated into British society, except the original generation who are all dying off now. My parents generation and my generation have very high levels of employment and business ownership. To single Wembley out as an area of how immigration is not beneficial is completely wrong. I hope it was just a mistake.
The area around Brent Park and south of it has a lot of deprivation, though maybe you don't count that as Wembley. Yes there are worse areas, but I try not to always single out the same places in my discussion.
That's not Wembley, it's Brent. Wembley is a very wealthy area.
It's all Brent. The big store in the area is called "IKEA Wembley". North Wembley is nicer, but Wembley doesn't finish south of the stadium.
As you struggle with this stuff, let's put it in simpler terms.
Which is better for the Tories in Newark?
1. Labour going hard. 2. Labour going home.
A simple 1 or 2 answer will suffice.
That logic implies that labour should only put up about 450 candidates in the GE election next year, as they should only put resources on seats they want to win....
Again, that wouldn't be very 'one nation' would it....
Or, another question: would labour prefer 1) a labour MP for Newark 2) a UKIP MP for Newark
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
And as yet none of the Tory posters have denied that this is their strategy.
Anyone hoping to influence how parties campaign in this by-election by typing comments on this website has seriously misjudged how to make an impact in politics.
Neil, the views of the Tory supporters on PB are likely to be reflective of Tory views more widely. The fact that those on PB seem desperate for us to fight hard is an indication of what the party as a whole wants.
"the idea that the UK could strike a better bargain, negotiating solo with the behemoth economies of China, India, Brazil and the US, rather than leveraging the collective bargaining power of the largest global bloc, is a fiction."
That only makes sense if you're all singing from the same hymn sheet. But us and the French never do. So the collective bargaining power of having a large bloc is more than negated by the fact that half of our table doesn't have our interests at heart.
"Immigration, looked at calmly and over time, has been a huge net benefit to the UK."
Only if you're hand-wringing lefty that thinks Wembley is wonderful for its "diversity". Most of the public recognise that mass unskilled immigration has put huge pressure on house prices, caused a shortage of school places, made good paying work more difficult for the natives, damaged social cohesion and also created a string of problems like gun crime, FGM and home grown terrorism.
These are the same bog standard arguments that are commonly trotted out on here and don't bear scrutiny. Nothing "quality" about them.
Mass immigration is good for the rich and bad for the poor. If any government really put poorest people in their own country ahead of anyone else they would stop the import of cheap unskilled labour, regardless of political dogma.
But seeing as we have controlled immigration from Africa, how has the FGM problem become so big?
The idea that immigration from Africa is "controlled" is a stretch. If we were looking to focus on skilled, high-quality migration, why would we have 100,000 people here from Somalia, an anarchic country virtually without any schooling system at all.
I am not being sarcy or saying it is a bad thing... but how has that happened if we have controlled immigration from Africa?
The initial lot gained asylum from the civil war, as the UK is naturally the first safe port of call for people fleeing Somalia, and then they use the clan based system and arranged marriages to get family migration.
Of course, the EU also allows the UK to take the rest of Europe's refugees:
There has also been some secondary migration of Somalis to the UK from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.[16][17] An academic article published in 2010 suggests that, since 2000, between 10,000 and 20,000 Somalis in the Netherlands have moved to the UK.[17] The driving forces behind this secondary migration included: a desire to reunite with family and friends;[2][18] a rise in Dutch opposition to Muslim immigration; Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;[19] a restrictive socio-economic environment which, among other things, made it difficult for new arrivals to find work;[20] and the comparative ease of starting a business and acquiring the means to get off social welfare in the UK.[19]
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
And as yet none of the Tory posters have denied that this is their strategy.
Anyone hoping to influence how parties campaign in this by-election by typing comments on this website has seriously misjudged how to make an impact in politics.
Neil, the views of the Tory supporters on PB are likely to be reflective of Tory views more widely. The fact that those on PB seem desperate for us to fight hard is an indication of what the party as a whole wants.
Is PB my route to Labour high command? Er, no.
Unlike the PB Kinnock's some of us are capable of thinking things from a position other than a tribal standpoint.
@Bobafett My (Labour) friend of a friend in Newark doesn't agree with you...
Labour Newark voter: Not at all, its true blue round here, also there is genuine good feeling toward Patrick Mercer, who despite the rest was a good local mp, which I think will attach itself to the new ruddy faced twat that's been parachuted in (apologies for the language but I am so sick of his face on the flyers on my doormat) 14 hours ago · Like
Labour Newark voter: With the collapse of the lib dems if you look at the percentages Labour could take it, if they put any effort in.
Labour Newark voter: If Labour put in an effort to convince people that the last Tory was actually a bit of a shit and the new ones not even local, they could get people out and it might get interesting, as it is I predict a very low turnout as its getting no national coverage and a simply Tory romp on a diminished but still satisfying majority, loosing some votes to confused ukip voters, the question I'd ask is whose leg has the Tory candidate humped to get this cherry.
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
And as yet none of the Tory posters have denied that this is their strategy.
Anyone hoping to influence how parties campaign in this by-election by typing comments on this website has seriously misjudged how to make an impact in politics.
Neil, the views of the Tory supporters on PB are likely to be reflective of Tory views more widely. The fact that those on PB seem desperate for us to fight hard is an indication of what the party as a whole wants.
Is PB my route to Labour high command? Er, no.
Tory supporters on PB called the Euro elections right, you should listen to us more often.
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
And as yet none of the Tory posters have denied that this is their strategy.
Anyone hoping to influence how parties campaign in this by-election by typing comments on this website has seriously misjudged how to make an impact in politics.
Neil, the views of the Tory supporters on PB are likely to be reflective of Tory views more widely. The fact that those on PB seem desperate for us to fight hard is an indication of what the party as a whole wants.
Is PB my route to Labour high command? Er, no.
Tory supporters on PB called the Euro elections right, you should listen to us more often.
Just a thought but are labour behind the Clegg removal plot? Oakeshott is basically a Labour supporter in all but name and Labour may well be calculating that a hung parliament is the probable outcome of the next GE. That being the case , the one huge obstacle to them teaming up with the LibDems is Nick Clegg and hence his removal prior to the GE would give them a big tactical advantage in any post GE negotiations. Just put it forward as an idea?
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
And as yet none of the Tory posters have denied that this is their strategy.
Anyone hoping to influence how parties campaign in this by-election by typing comments on this website has seriously misjudged how to make an impact in politics.
Neil, the views of the Tory supporters on PB are likely to be reflective of Tory views more widely. The fact that those on PB seem desperate for us to fight hard is an indication of what the party as a whole wants.
Is PB my route to Labour high command? Er, no.
Tory supporters on PB called the Euro elections right, you should listen to us more often.
Just a thought but are labour behind the Clegg removal plot? Oakeshott is basically a Labour supporter in all but name and Labour may well be calculating that a hung parliament is the probable outcome of the next GE. That being the case , the one huge obstacle to them teaming up with the LibDems is Nick Clegg and hence his removal prior to the GE would give them a big tactical advantage in any post GE negotiations. Just put it forward as an idea?
No.
Removing Clegg would be a massive strategic disadvantage to Labour. Labour need Clegg to remain in place.
Of course, the EU also allows the UK to take the rest of Europe's refugees:
There has also been some secondary migration of Somalis to the UK from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.[16][17] An academic article published in 2010 suggests that, since 2000, between 10,000 and 20,000 Somalis in the Netherlands have moved to the UK.[17] The driving forces behind this secondary migration included: a desire to reunite with family and friends;[2][18] a rise in Dutch opposition to Muslim immigration; Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;[19] a restrictive socio-economic environment which, among other things, made it difficult for new arrivals to find work;[20] and the comparative ease of starting a business and acquiring the means to get off social welfare in the UK.[19]
"Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;"
That's where governments have missed a trick.. govt housing for refugees should be a certain % of each borough and no more, to stop ghettos, and to try and maintain harmony/aid assimilation with the existing population
Of course, the EU also allows the UK to take the rest of Europe's refugees:
There has also been some secondary migration of Somalis to the UK from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.[16][17] An academic article published in 2010 suggests that, since 2000, between 10,000 and 20,000 Somalis in the Netherlands have moved to the UK.[17] The driving forces behind this secondary migration included: a desire to reunite with family and friends;[2][18] a rise in Dutch opposition to Muslim immigration; Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;[19] a restrictive socio-economic environment which, among other things, made it difficult for new arrivals to find work;[20] and the comparative ease of starting a business and acquiring the means to get off social welfare in the UK.[19]
"Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;"
That's where governments have missed a trick.. govt housing for refugees should be a certain % of each borough and no more, to stop ghettos, and to try and maintain harmony/aid assimilation with the existing population
Of course, the EU also allows the UK to take the rest of Europe's refugees:
There has also been some secondary migration of Somalis to the UK from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.[16][17] An academic article published in 2010 suggests that, since 2000, between 10,000 and 20,000 Somalis in the Netherlands have moved to the UK.[17] The driving forces behind this secondary migration included: a desire to reunite with family and friends;[2][18] a rise in Dutch opposition to Muslim immigration; Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;[19] a restrictive socio-economic environment which, among other things, made it difficult for new arrivals to find work;[20] and the comparative ease of starting a business and acquiring the means to get off social welfare in the UK.[19]
"Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;"
That's where governments have missed a trick.. govt housing for refugees should be a certain % of each borough and no more, to stop ghettos, and to try and maintain harmony/aid assimilation with the existing population
I often wonder if there's practical policies that could break up immigrant neighbourhoods for non-refugees. Maybe a reduction in council tax for a set period if you move to an area where the dominant ethnic group has more than twice the share then it does in the broader population and you're from outside that group. There's obviously a ton of problems with this, but I wonder if they could be resolved. I haven't thought this through though, so would like to hear other people's ideas.
Sorry if this sounds nasty but surely refugees should be so glad to escape where they are fleeing from that they will happily take a council house in a safe country even if theyre the only person from their country in the borough?
Of course, the EU also allows the UK to take the rest of Europe's refugees:
There has also been some secondary migration of Somalis to the UK from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.[16][17] An academic article published in 2010 suggests that, since 2000, between 10,000 and 20,000 Somalis in the Netherlands have moved to the UK.[17] The driving forces behind this secondary migration included: a desire to reunite with family and friends;[2][18] a rise in Dutch opposition to Muslim immigration; Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;[19] a restrictive socio-economic environment which, among other things, made it difficult for new arrivals to find work;[20] and the comparative ease of starting a business and acquiring the means to get off social welfare in the UK.[19]
"Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;"
That's where governments have missed a trick.. govt housing for refugees should be a certain % of each borough and no more, to stop ghettos, and to try and maintain harmony/aid assimilation with the existing population
I often wonder if there's practical policies that could break up immigrant neighbourhoods for non-refugees. Maybe a reduction in council tax for a set period if you move to an area where the dominant ethnic group has more than twice the share then it does in the broader population and you're from outside that group. There's obviously a ton of problems with this, but I wonder if they could be resolved. I haven't thought this through though, so would like to hear other people's ideas.
It sounds a bit statist for people that are supposed to be libertarians.. although I have never said I was one, and we shouldnt let dogma get in the way of whats best for social harmony
Sorry if this sounds nasty but surely refugees should be so glad to escape where they are fleeing from that they will happily take a council house in a safe country even if theyre the only person from their country in the borough?
The probably would be, but if you have free movement to a country that's more of a soft touch and allows you to form a community of your countrymen and no social pressure to integrate, then why not? Once again, it's a situation where our own government is to blame.
What baffles me about Cameron - perhaps it's a politics thing - is that surely if he wants to be taken seriously by Yerp he should serve notice under Article whatever it is?
When I started my working life, I was a bit bemused that a customer we had finally agreed a 3-year supply deal with instantly, like the next day, served us with notice to quit after 3 years. I wondered to my area manager why they had done that, as in, was it somehow hostile? And he just said No, it's what you do; it preserves their position and reminds us that the default outcome is we lose their business unless we work to keep it.
The rational sequence is surely
> invoke said Article (which he could perfectly well do now); > win election; > start renegotiation on the basis that if he doesn't get what he wants the Brexit process is underway and will play out; > if he does get what he wants, the referendum question is then "do we accept the new terms and withdraw the notice to quit?"
Yes then means stay in; No means quit.
He's apparently planning to renegotiate with people he can't threaten (in the diplomatic sense), which seems doomed to failure.
I see what you are getting at, Mr. Bond, but Cameron cannot invoke Article 50. Firstly, to do so would, surely, require at vote in the House, which he would lose (Lib Dems would vote with Labour as would some Conservative MPs). Secondly, Cameron has already said he wants to the UK to stay in regardless, so even if he could win a vote for invoking Article 50 he wouldn't do it.
Cameron's strategy is to do a Wilson in '75. That is to say, get some trivial concessions then mobilise the mainstream of the established parties, big business, the trade unions, the mainstream media all to campaign for a yes vote. It worked for Wilson, it will probably work for Cameron. Of course he might not be PM in which case the negotiations let alone the vote will never happen.
It sounds a bit statist for people that are supposed to be libertarians.. although I have never said I was one, and we shouldnt let dogma get in the way of whats best for social harmony
Yes, that was my instinct a little bit too. On the other hand, it would just be a "nudge" incentive rather than compulsion. I also wondered how open it was to abuse to people pretending to be one ethnic group or another. How do they verify ethnicity in things like minority scholarships in the US?
Cough. As I said on here yesterday. After my Euros home run (vs WrongCrosby) you can just call me Nostradamus.
Why are you trying to rewrite history? Rod said there may be value in betting that Labour could come third. He didn't make a prediction, he pointed out the value in a bet. That bet failed to come off by a narrow margin. What you do is carp after the event.
Absolute rubbish. Check the thread on the night. Even Rod himself has freely admitted on here he made an in-play UNS bet which was wrong. I stuck to my guns.
Sorry, bet=forecast I don't know whether he actually bet on it.
And so you reveal your ignorance of UNS.
I explained it all clearly on the night. After the first result, UNS showed Labour coming third, narrowly. I told people to keep an eye on the running aggregate vote changes, to see if this held. It was nip and tuck for a while. I informed people when the forecast showed Labour ahead again.
I've done this kind of thing for as long as I've been posting on PB. It's not a firm forecast, more a running public information service.
And it wasn't that somehow I'd forgotten Scotland and London were strong Labour areas (look up the meaning of UNS again), but rather that those areas had large increases in turnout, which finally cemented Labour's small national vote lead versus the Tories.
It sounds a bit statist for people that are supposed to be libertarians.. although I have never said I was one, and we shouldnt let dogma get in the way of whats best for social harmony
Yes, that was my instinct a little bit too. On the other hand, it would just be a "nudge" incentive rather than compulsion. I also wondered how open it was to abuse to people pretending to be one ethnic group or another. How do they verify ethnicity in things like minority scholarships in the US?
If councils were only allowed a max of 5% of social housing for refugees, there would be more refugees in places like Witney and less in the inner cities. Maybe then we really would start being "One Nation" and politicians could say what they think is best for the whole country, rather than pandering to the ethnic or social backgrounds of particular constituencies
Hate to have to quote Enoch, but he did predict this 46 years ago
"In fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country 3½ million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to Parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000; but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by different sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population. "
Wembley is a great place. I think you meant Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets. Wembley, Southall and Harrow are mostly Indian (Hindu, Sikh and Muslim, but from India or East Africa) and most people are very well integrated into British society, except the original generation who are all dying off now. My parents generation and my generation have very high levels of employment and business ownership. To single Wembley out as an area of how immigration is not beneficial is completely wrong. I hope it was just a mistake.
The area around Brent Park and south of it has a lot of deprivation, though maybe you don't count that as Wembley. Yes there are worse areas, but I try not to always single out the same places in my discussion.
That's not Wembley, it's Brent. Wembley is a very wealthy area.
It's all Brent. The big store in the area is called "IKEA Wembley". North Wembley is nicer, but Wembley doesn't finish south of the stadium.
You are confusing the London Borough of Brent with the district of Brent aren't you? Ealing is in Ealing Borough and so is Acton. That doesn't mean that Acton IS Ealing, if you catch my drift.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
Very interesting Jack - on these numbers, compared with the the 2010 GE result, the Tories win a net 11 seats, Labour win a net 10 seats and the LibDems lose a net 25 seats.
Unless I'm missing something, these figures only work if the net loss of Tory seats to Labour is limited to around a mere handful.
As I've suggested before, such an outcome appears to provide a whole range of attractive betting opportunities on would-be held Tory seats, always assuming Ladbrokes re-introduce their constituency markets at odds akin to those previously on offer.
- "always assuming Ladbrokes re-introduce their constituency markets at odds akin to those previously on offer."
Cough. As I said on here yesterday. After my Euros home run (vs WrongCrosby) you can just call me Nostradamus.
Why are you trying to rewrite history? Rod said there may be value in betting that Labour could come third. He didn't make a prediction, he pointed out the value in a bet. That bet failed to come off by a narrow margin. What you do is carp after the event.
Absolute rubbish. Check the thread on the night. Even Rod himself has freely admitted on here he made an in-play UNS bet which was wrong. I stuck to my guns.
Sorry, bet=forecast I don't know whether he actually bet on it.
And so you reveal your ignorance of UNS.
I explained it all clearly on the night. After the first result, UNS showed Labour coming third, narrowly. I told people to keep an eye on the running aggregate vote changes, to see if this held. It was nip and tuck for a while. I informed people when the forecast showed Labour ahead again.
I've done this kind of thing for as long as I've been posting on PB. It's not a firm forecast, more a running public information service.
And it wasn't that somehow I'd forgotten Scotland and London were strong Labour areas (look up the meaning of UNS again), but rather that those areas had large increases in turnout, which finally cemented Labour's small national vote lead versus the Tories.
And I didn't bet in-play.
Oh for more posters who genuinely understand betting. Come back t*m, all some is forgiven.
This is FPP. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats. It really is that simple.
This is a by-election. By-elections are different. They are a chance to really put pressure on the Government. They are a chance to demonstrate in a real election that your party is a winner.
I'm not arguing that Labour is doomed if they don't manage to win the seat, but they need to put on a good show - and then they can forget about Newark for the general election.
Labour don't really want to cede all the media space to yet another good electoral performance by UKIP.
It sounds a bit statist for people that are supposed to be libertarians.. although I have never said I was one, and we shouldnt let dogma get in the way of whats best for social harmony
Yes, that was my instinct a little bit too. On the other hand, it would just be a "nudge" incentive rather than compulsion. I also wondered how open it was to abuse to people pretending to be one ethnic group or another. How do they verify ethnicity in things like minority scholarships in the US?
IF councils were only allowed a max of 5% of social housing for refugees, there would be more refugees in places like Witney and less in the inner cities. Maybe then we really would start being "One Nation" and politicians could say what they think is best for the whole country, rather than pandering to the ethnic or social backgrounds of particular constituencies ....
Yes, but are you going to say that refugees once settled can never move? If not what is to stop them once they have their right to remain ticket upping sticks and joining the compatriots in another area of the country (and claiming housing benefit there).
Wembley is a great place. I think you meant Whitechapel and Tower Hamlets. Wembley, Southall and Harrow are mostly Indian (Hindu, Sikh and Muslim, but from India or East Africa) and most people are very well integrated into British society, except the original generation who are all dying off now. My parents generation and my generation have very high levels of employment and business ownership. To single Wembley out as an area of how immigration is not beneficial is completely wrong. I hope it was just a mistake.
The area around Brent Park and south of it has a lot of deprivation, though maybe you don't count that as Wembley. Yes there are worse areas, but I try not to always single out the same places in my discussion.
That's not Wembley, it's Brent. Wembley is a very wealthy area.
It's all Brent. The big store in the area is called "IKEA Wembley". North Wembley is nicer, but Wembley doesn't finish south of the stadium.
You are confusing the London Borough of Brent with the district of Brent aren't you? Ealing is in Ealing Borough and so is Acton. That doesn't mean that Acton IS Ealing, if you catch my drift.
I get where you're coming from, but there's not a district of Brent. There's "Brent Park". Wembley is also a large area across multiple districts, and I'd include Brent Park in that.
If anybody happens to be in Newark next week, you can meet the famous Shadsy in person:
- "I am probably going to be in Newark myself early next week – if anyone reading this spots me outside the Ladbrokes in Market Sq., feel free to come and say hello. I’ll be standing next to a chalkboard with some odds on it."
This is FPP. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats. It really is that simple.
This is a by-election. By-elections are different. They are a chance to really put pressure on the Government. They are a chance to demonstrate in a real election that your party is a winner.
I'm not arguing that Labour is doomed if they don't manage to win the seat, but they need to put on a good show - and then they can forget about Newark for the general election.
Labour don't really want to cede all the media space to yet another good electoral performance by UKIP.
Then again Labour finishing third and getting 2% and 2.7% in the Newbury and Christchurch by-elections in 1993 whilst the Lib Dems won didn't impede them in 1997.
It seems Labour have decided they cannot get enough switchers from the Conservatives to win, and are allowing opposition to the Conservatives to coalesce around UKIP. This could allow UKIP to win.
That Labour are not trying to win Newark is quite telling. I suppose it fits the 35% strategy.
This is FPP. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats. It really is that simple.
This is a by-election. By-elections are different. They are a chance to really put pressure on the Government. They are a chance to demonstrate in a real election that your party is a winner.
I'm not arguing that Labour is doomed if they don't manage to win the seat, but they need to put on a good show - and then they can forget about Newark for the general election.
Labour don't really want to cede all the media space to yet another good electoral performance by UKIP.
As mentioned down thread, Labour List has published an article suggesting that they are putting some effort into fighting for the seat.
Which seems at odds with what has been posted here.
This is FPP. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats. It really is that simple.
This is a by-election. By-elections are different. They are a chance to really put pressure on the Government. They are a chance to demonstrate in a real election that your party is a winner.
I'm not arguing that Labour is doomed if they don't manage to win the seat, but they need to put on a good show - and then they can forget about Newark for the general election.
Labour don't really want to cede all the media space to yet another good electoral performance by UKIP.
As mentioned down thread, Labour List has published an article suggesting that they are putting some effort into fighting for the seat.
Which seems at odds with what has been posted here.
This is FPP. There is no point wasting resources on unwinnable seats. It really is that simple.
This is a by-election. By-elections are different. They are a chance to really put pressure on the Government. They are a chance to demonstrate in a real election that your party is a winner.
I'm not arguing that Labour is doomed if they don't manage to win the seat, but they need to put on a good show - and then they can forget about Newark for the general election.
Labour don't really want to cede all the media space to yet another good electoral performance by UKIP.
Then again Labour finishing third and getting 2% and 2.7% in the Newbury and Christchurch by-elections in 1993 whilst the Lib Dems won didn't impede them in 1997.
And the Tories gaining Norwich North on a 16.5 point swing from Labour on 23 July 2009 was followed by a landslide CON MAJ at the general election 10 months later.
Comments
http://www.craigwilly.info/2014/05/28/the-front-nationals-program-in-12-points/#more-2643
That you two don't grasp FPP strategy is hardly my fault.
@Watcher
Tory advises Labour to waste their money. In other news, the sun rose this morning.
Don't say you weren't warned.
More than one in three employees in Wales (35.4%) belonged to a union last year, according to the Office for National Statistics – significantly more than the UK average of 25.6%. This compared to membership rates of 32% in Scotland and just 24.1% in England.
However, the researchers note that while membership levels fell by around seven percentage points in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland between 1995 and 2013, there was approximately a nine point slump in Wales.
In 1995, 44.3% of employees in Wales belonged to a union. Membership levels hit the lowest point in 2012 when just one in three Welsh workers (33%) were in a union.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-remains-trade-union-stronghold-7185599
15.6%, here we come!
Perhaps it is so skint it must husband its cash for 2015. Perhaps it is just not interested in trying to win the votes of, quite literally, middle England, which is even more revealing considering its leader is fond of banging on about his one nation vision.
1. Cam goes it alone and forms a minority government.
2. Cam continues the coalition with the Lib-Dems.
3. Cam relies on Irish and UKIP 3.
Too little, too late. Uncontrolled borders from poor countries will always adversely affect the working class. Stop it and forget about about smart arse, twisty turny words,. The working class voters Labour are losing dont want benefit handouts, tax credits or the people taking their jobs to speak English, they want the opportunity to earn a decent wage and provide for their family
"Wages have barely increased whilst the cost of everything - from housing to energy and food - has rocketed.
And in too many places immigration has driven down local wages.
I understand why people think that politicians do little to help them.
Take immigration. In the past, we were too quick to dismiss concerns about immigration, or even worse - accused people of prejudice.
We all remember Gillian Duffy. We were wrong. We are sorry."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/478076/We-were-wrong-we-are-sorry-Senior-Labour-MP-Sadiq-Khan-pens-open-letter-to-Ukip-voters
Strange that they've given up on it, and Dorky Ed's shills are peddling excuses.
15.6%, they are coming for you.
Instead of being waspish tell me what part of my strategy you disagree with, and why.
Brandy Snap @Brandy_Snap 9m
More
@Rowland72James Ha! Thought you'd appreciate this page from an old Ladybird Classics book… =] pic.twitter.com/qaoGDY9d2J
Not sure if UKIP would do a deal with the Tories. The experience of the LDs is bound to make other parties more wary of entering coalition.
A la Eastleigh. Game theory says do what your opponent least wants you to do. That the Conservatives are openly encouraging Labour to hard pedal in Newark is indeed telling...
Maybe Miliband's no longer a drag because he's scared off most floating voters?
Both with enormous blind spots when it comes to UKIP, who never admit when they are wrong.
One of you is definitely wrong in this case, and Id bet 1/10 it is you
The afternoon thread will ruffle a few feathers then, as I say Cameron truly is the Heir to Blair.
LOL. Appointment to view!
Will Lib Dem voters see any point lending their vote to Labour.
Maybe one or two, but Sherwood could be bloody close.
Labour soft pedalling Newark is not without risk.
As you struggle with this stuff, let's put it in simpler terms.
Which is better for the Tories in Newark?
1. Labour going hard.
2. Labour going home.
A simple 1 or 2 answer will suffice.
We got Piers Morgan to leave not only the country but the whole continent, and then we let him back in? Sheer madness.
http://labourlist.org/2014/05/shadow-cabinet-going-to-newark-is-labour-taking-this-by-election-more-seriously/
When I started my working life, I was a bit bemused that a customer we had finally agreed a 3-year supply deal with instantly, like the next day, served us with notice to quit after 3 years. I wondered to my area manager why they had done that, as in, was it somehow hostile? And he just said No, it's what you do; it preserves their position and reminds us that the default outcome is we lose their business unless we work to keep it.
The rational sequence is surely
> invoke said Article (which he could perfectly well do now);
> win election;
> start renegotiation on the basis that if he doesn't get what he wants the Brexit process is underway and will play out;
> if he does get what he wants, the referendum question is then "do we accept the new terms and withdraw the notice to quit?"
Yes then means stay in; No means quit.
He's apparently planning to renegotiate with people he can't threaten (in the diplomatic sense), which seems doomed to failure.
'Agree that Labour can't be expected to gain the seat but they should be gaining votes. Losing votes to UKIP would lead to more problems for Ed'
If Labour can't be arsed to compete in this seat they should at least stop peddling the One Nation crap.
Again, that wouldn't be very 'one nation' would it....
Or, another question: would labour prefer
1) a labour MP for Newark
2) a UKIP MP for Newark
It's not rocket science.
Is PB my route to Labour high command? Er, no.
Of course, the EU also allows the UK to take the rest of Europe's refugees:
There has also been some secondary migration of Somalis to the UK from the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark.[16][17] An academic article published in 2010 suggests that, since 2000, between 10,000 and 20,000 Somalis in the Netherlands have moved to the UK.[17] The driving forces behind this secondary migration included: a desire to reunite with family and friends;[2][18] a rise in Dutch opposition to Muslim immigration; Somali opposition to housing policies which forced them to live scattered in small groups all over various cities rather than in a larger agglomerated community;[19] a restrictive socio-economic environment which, among other things, made it difficult for new arrivals to find work;[20] and the comparative ease of starting a business and acquiring the means to get off social welfare in the UK.[19]
Labour Newark voter: Not at all, its true blue round here, also there is genuine good feeling toward Patrick Mercer, who despite the rest was a good local mp, which I think will attach itself to the new ruddy faced twat that's been parachuted in (apologies for the language but I am so sick of his face on the flyers on my doormat)
14 hours ago · Like
Labour Newark voter: With the collapse of the lib dems if you look at the percentages Labour could take it, if they put any effort in.
Labour Newark voter: If Labour put in an effort to convince people that the last Tory was actually a bit of a shit and the new ones not even local, they could get people out and it might get interesting, as it is I predict a very low turnout as its getting no national coverage and a simply Tory romp on a diminished but still satisfying majority, loosing some votes to confused ukip voters, the question I'd ask is whose leg has the Tory candidate humped to get this cherry.
https://user.nojam.com/pid/50/live/averagebygeparty.php
We told you Brown was a dud even before he became Labour leader
Some more information:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/5/20050105-094454-3064r/
Removing Clegg would be a massive strategic disadvantage to Labour. Labour need Clegg to remain in place.
That's where governments have missed a trick.. govt housing for refugees should be a certain % of each borough and no more, to stop ghettos, and to try and maintain harmony/aid assimilation with the existing population
Was intrigued by story of Lab/Con deal on Thurrock council, but both parties tell me it's nonsense!
*Not a real county - Cumberland / Westmorland hybrid
Cameron's strategy is to do a Wilson in '75. That is to say, get some trivial concessions then mobilise the mainstream of the established parties, big business, the trade unions, the mainstream media all to campaign for a yes vote. It worked for Wilson, it will probably work for Cameron. Of course he might not be PM in which case the negotiations let alone the vote will never happen.
I explained it all clearly on the night. After the first result, UNS showed Labour coming third, narrowly. I told people to keep an eye on the running aggregate vote changes, to see if this held. It was nip and tuck for a while. I informed people when the forecast showed Labour ahead again.
I've done this kind of thing for as long as I've been posting on PB. It's not a firm forecast, more a running public information service.
And it wasn't that somehow I'd forgotten Scotland and London were strong Labour areas (look up the meaning of UNS again), but rather that those areas had large increases in turnout, which finally cemented Labour's small national vote lead versus the Tories.
And I didn't bet in-play.
Hate to have to quote Enoch, but he did predict this 46 years ago
"In fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country 3½ million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to Parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000; but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by different sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population. "
http://www.enochpowell.net/fr-79.html
No one listened, hence we are not "One Nation"
Not gonna happen.
I'm not arguing that Labour is doomed if they don't manage to win the seat, but they need to put on a good show - and then they can forget about Newark for the general election.
Labour don't really want to cede all the media space to yet another good electoral performance by UKIP.
A nice idea, but it wouldn't work.
Sunday
"Labour on the way to third place nationally with that result"
"So the urban areas declaring first, not good for Labour"
As the saying goes, do your own research ;-)
- "I am probably going to be in Newark myself early next week – if anyone reading this spots me outside the Ladbrokes in Market Sq., feel free to come and say hello. I’ll be standing next to a chalkboard with some odds on it."
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/newark-by-election-latest-betting-news/
Ask him if he'll give you 4/1 for an SNP GAIN in Inverness!
It seems Labour have decided they cannot get enough switchers from the Conservatives to win, and are allowing opposition to the Conservatives to coalesce around UKIP. This could allow UKIP to win.
That Labour are not trying to win Newark is quite telling. I suppose it fits the 35% strategy.
Apropos of nothing, but there you go.
Which seems at odds with what has been posted here.
Should someone send Wee Dougie an email?
It's very interesting when you look at a map of London, the non-white immigrants cluster and the white immigrants don't really:
http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ethnic_density1.jpg