It would be great if UKIP actually win Newark. Speaking as someone who voted UKIP at the Euros, I don't think they will, the Tories will probably sneak home. But - I'll tell you honestly, I will love it if we beat them! Love it!
Cameron's getting windy. The Tory candidate is unprepossessing. Looks like a comfortable UKIP win to me.
The tory candidate looks like part of the problem. A person for whom mass immigration has worked extremely well, in terms of cheap labour and rocketing house prices.
I've just seen a fascinating interview with Marine Le Pen in which she advocated exactly the same strategy as David Cameron on the EU. She's proposing to renegotiate the treaties in advance of an in-out referendum and will recommend 'in' if she gets what she wants (control of borders, currency and economy) and 'out' if she doesn't.
What was behind the bad blood between Mercer and Cameron. I am reliably informed that the two men loathe each other.
Mercer made some ill-advised comments, describing racial abuse in the Army as a fact of life or somesuch. While not being racist as such, the Mail went for him, and Cameron threw him overboard. He felt badly treated and bore a grudge thereafter
"In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."
Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?
No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
We've had a PM of one of the big three countries for decades, but never seen it achieve much, with either party in power.
There's never been a formal candidate selection before. Look at the actual candidate selection process that happened in Dublin this year and try to tell me that Cameron wouldn't have been seriously influential if he'd still been in the party.
Why does the EPP even get to appoint the position anyway? They only got 28% of the seats.
The EPP appoints their candidate, then if they get most seats that person gets the job with the support of other parties making 50%. It's the same as the way David Cameron gets to be the UK Prime Minister with only 36% of the vote, and less than 50% of the seats.
But the other parties don't even require part of their programs to be included? That doesn't seem very representative that elected them.
But the other parties don't even require part of their programs to be included? That doesn't seem very representative that elected them.
It's the same as anywhere without an overall majority. Parties have to consider what they ask for in exchange for support - a referendum on AV, for instance...
Of course, one of the classic arguments for FPTP is that you get to see the programmes up front when you vote, while proportional systems usually result in hung parliaments and post-election negotiations. On the other hand, FPTP produces big parties offering programmes intended to embrace a broad tent, so it would be sadly a bit optimistic to maintain that studying them gives deep insight on what will actually happen.
"In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."
Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?
No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
We've had a PM of one of the big three countries for decades, but never seen it achieve much, with either party in power.
There's never been a formal candidate selection before. Look at the actual candidate selection process that happened in Dublin this year and try to tell me that Cameron wouldn't have been seriously influential if he'd still been in the party.
Why does the EPP even get to appoint the position anyway? They only got 28% of the seats.
The EPP appoints their candidate, then if they get most seats that person gets the job with the support of other parties making 50%. It's the same as the way David Cameron gets to be the UK Prime Minister with only 36% of the vote, and less than 50% of the seats.
But the other parties don't even require part of their programs to be included? That doesn't seem very representative that elected them.
Right now the Commission President doesn't really get to make any programs to speak of, because so much is driven by the member states. If the spitzkandidat system sticks they'll probably increasingly use their mandate to gradually increase their influence in the same way the US presidents did, in which case there will be a bit more to haggle over.
I was a Lib Dem teller at the 1989 by-election. The anti-Tory vote was split between the Owenite Michael Potter, a well-liked local farmer, and an unknown Lib Dem lady from Harrogate. The countryside was plastered with Vote Potter placards. He ran Hague close but just failed to kibosh his career before it got started. Instead he entered the cabinet in 1995.
"Ukip won the Euro elections in the face of years of scorn and derision from the Tory leadership, who called them fruitcakes, racists and clowns, and from the tame media, including the BBC, who for weeks before the election obediently recycled smears about individual Ukip candidates, pretending they’d found them themselves when of course they came from within the Tory dirty-tricks department.
The Tory Party dared not fight on its record, which is one of sustained Blairism, on immigration, political correctness, education and the economy (a dangerously inflated mass of debt which will explode like a punctured Zeppelin once George Osborne is out of the way after the next Election).
So it fought instead with smears. And now it seeks to deflect attention from the Blairite Tory Party’s disaster at the polls.
Some dingbat at Tory headquarters who doesn’t read the papers has been sending me the emails they dispatch to their loyal media toadies. I have no hesitation in sharing them with you."
Good morning all and on thread there is one fundamental difference.
At the time of the previous by-elections, UKIP was still being referred to by many, if not most as the fruitcake party. It is now seen as a serious player. People are no longer ashamed to admit that they support UKIP which was certainly the case 1-2 years ago.
Excellent point. I've not checked out the polls from those by-elections but were UKIP still in the 'Some Other Party' option at the time, something that does tend towards under-polling? As others have said, the polling for the Euros was pretty good, which does indicate that the pollsters have got their methodology broadly right both in relation to UKIP and to low-turnout elections.
None of that prevents a late swing one way or the other but even if that does occur, it's not that the polls were wrong, just that they'd become out of date.
Mercer - to my mind - is a classic case of politics changing people
How did he change?
His whole campaign, and the reason we as local independents supported him, was based upon being a local MP who would listen to and represent the constituency at Westminster. After the debacle of Fiona Jones who was very much Blair's representative in Newark rather than the constituency's representative in Parliament it was clear what people wanted and Mercer played that card right from the start.
The trouble is that once he was MP he really stopped representing anyone to a large extent. He had his interests in Parliament - particularly armed forces welfare - but otherwise seemed to be too tied up in his own personal battles and lost interest in what he was supposed to be doing.
What was behind the bad blood between Mercer and Cameron. I am reliably informed that the two men loathe each other.
Mercer made some ill-advised comments, describing racial abuse in the Army as a fact of life or somesuch. While not being racist as such, the Mail went for him, and Cameron threw him overboard. He felt badly treated and bore a grudge thereafter
Not true. The enmity between the two of them started long before the racism incident.
What was behind the bad blood between Mercer and Cameron. I am reliably informed that the two men loathe each other.
Mercer made some ill-advised comments, describing racial abuse in the Army as a fact of life or somesuch. While not being racist as such, the Mail went for him, and Cameron threw him overboard. He felt badly treated and bore a grudge thereafter
Close but no cigar. There was one of the periodic hoo-has in the Mail about alleged racism in the army. Mercer made the perfectly true and valid point that an awful lot of such allegations were in fact made by squaddies who were not up to the standard required and who were throwing allegations of racism to cover their own inadequacies. The papers made a fuss about someone speaking a truth they didn't like and Cameron, having the backbone of a jellyfish, sacked him.
That said I suspect their mutual loathing went back long before that incident and was based, as someone said up-thread, on naturally opposing personality types. Mercer would have sniffed out Cameron as an unprincipled, multi-faced chancer who will say anything, do anything to attain and keep power Cameron would have recognised Mercer as a man who would not fall for the Cameron line of bullshit and therefore would cause him trouble.
What was behind the bad blood between Mercer and Cameron. I am reliably informed that the two men loathe each other.
Mercer made some ill-advised comments, describing racial abuse in the Army as a fact of life or somesuch. While not being racist as such, the Mail went for him, and Cameron threw him overboard. He felt badly treated and bore a grudge thereafter
Not true. The enmity between the two of them started long before the racism incident.
You need to be careful with the word "truth".
My comment is true, but happy to accept that it may not be the whole story.
What was behind the bad blood between Mercer and Cameron. I am reliably informed that the two men loathe each other.
Mercer made some ill-advised comments, describing racial abuse in the Army as a fact of life or somesuch. While not being racist as such, the Mail went for him, and Cameron threw him overboard. He felt badly treated and bore a grudge thereafter
Not true. The enmity between the two of them started long before the racism incident.
You need to be careful with the word "truth".
My comment is true, but happy to accept that it may not be the whole story.
I thought you were about to quote Indiana Jones
Archaeology is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
I hope UKIP come second, but beat Labour by a distance.
Good afternoon, Mr Dancer. Glad to see Sir Edric's Treasure is coming along and I greatly look forward to buying it and reading it. Can I suggest you put on sale for a fiver for the download copy. I'll bet you £50 that if you do it will outsell Sir Edric's Temple.
That's a bet you cannot lose because if you did the increase in earnings will more than pay your debt to me, and if you win you can cut the price and get £50 from me.
Good morning all and on thread there is one fundamental difference.
At the time of the previous by-elections, UKIP was still being referred to by many, if not most as the fruitcake party. It is now seen as a serious player. People are no longer ashamed to admit that they support UKIP which was certainly the case 1-2 years ago.
Excellent point. I've not checked out the polls from those by-elections but were UKIP still in the 'Some Other Party' option at the time, something that does tend towards under-polling? As others have said, the polling for the Euros was pretty good, which does indicate that the pollsters have got their methodology broadly right both in relation to UKIP and to low-turnout elections.
None of that prevents a late swing one way or the other but even if that does occur, it's not that the polls were wrong, just that they'd become out of date.
UKIP were an option in Ashcrofts Eastleigh poll, the candidates were named
Question for anoraks: If Roger Helmer wins Newark and becomes MP, what according to British/EU law happens to MEP status? Does it go to the next in line on the list - as happens in the Israeli Knesset, do UKIP forfeit the the MEP spot, or is there another election for the spot?
"From 3.8% at the General Election and 13% at the start of the campaign, they were by last weekend polling into the low-to-mid twenties – a near six-fold increase. When considering that polls conducted by Populus and Ashcroft did not include UKIP in their initial voting question as the Survation polls did, it is possible that the last two polls on the chart understate UKIP support by several points – meaning that it has continued to increase at a faster rate than the chart initially indicates. Already UKIP is within the margin of error of the Conservatives (shown by the overlap of the dashed blue and purple lines on the far right) and very slightly overlapping with the Liberal Democrats on the Survation poll (dashed orange line)."
Mr. Dawning, I bow to no man in my utter contempt for Gordon Brown. However, if I had been asked by Lord West to give my views on matters in which I had particular expertise I would have done so regardless of my feelings for his boss.
I have to say as time goes on and Cameron sinks lower and lower in my estimation Imight have to add a notch to my contempt meter. Maybe take it up to 11.
Question for anoraks: If Roger Helmer wins Newark and becomes MP, what according to British/EU law happens to MEP status? Does it go to the next in line on the list - as happens in the Israeli Knesset, do UKIP forfeit the the MEP spot, or is there another election for the spot?
Mr. Dawning, I bow to no man in my utter contempt for Gordon Brown. However, if I had been asked by Lord West to give my views on matters in which I had particular expertise I would have done so regardless of my feelings for his boss.
I have to say as time goes on and Cameron sinks lower and lower in my estimation Imight have to add a notch to my contempt meter. Maybe take it up to 11.
Be careful, Mr Llama.
It's a short step from that to dancing round Stonehenge with a posse of dwarves
"I hope UKIP come second, but beat Labour by a distance."
Winning the seat would actually present one or two minor difficulties for UKIP. Helmer would be upstaging Farage and representing the Party more prominently than might be good for it.
Optimum result for the Kippers would, imo, be a very close second place. My guess is that's what they will get.
"Ukip won the Euro elections in the face of years of scorn and derision from the Tory leadership, who called them fruitcakes, racists and clowns, and from the tame media, including the BBC, who for weeks before the election obediently recycled smears about individual Ukip candidates, pretending they’d found them themselves when of course they came from within the Tory dirty-tricks department.
The Tory Party dared not fight on its record, which is one of sustained Blairism, on immigration, political correctness, education and the economy (a dangerously inflated mass of debt which will explode like a punctured Zeppelin once George Osborne is out of the way after the next Election).
So it fought instead with smears. And now it seeks to deflect attention from the Blairite Tory Party’s disaster at the polls.
Some dingbat at Tory headquarters who doesn’t read the papers has been sending me the emails they dispatch to their loyal media toadies. I have no hesitation in sharing them with you."
Hitchens is starting to sound like some weird pamphlet I got hold of years ago in which the author boasted that after years of study (David Irving, the Protocols or the Elders of Zion etc.) he was able to impart to the masses the underlying truths of the universe hitherto concealed.(I am comparing only tone, by the way, not content.)
Mr. Punter, I agree with that sentiment, but if UKIP don't win it could be seen as the arresting of their momentum and be reported as people shifting from a protest vote to a serious mindset.
If Labour come third (unless the blues lose) then one of the main lines that will emerge will be of Miliband continuing to lead Labour to mediocrity.
It's some way off (hopeful of release this year), but the price might be even more difficult than usual to set, for reasons I can't go into just yet.
Mr. D., just charge what your work is worth. You give me several hours of fun, and the occasional belly laugh, and I give you a fiver - I am the one that is the winner on that scale and that is not fair. The prices you have charged up to now are just silly.
P.S. Make your books longer. Add in a sub-plot, put in more description, you know what the world you have created looks like, sounds like, smells like tell me your reader.
"I hope UKIP come second, but beat Labour by a distance."
Winning the seat would actually present one or two minor difficulties for UKIP. Helmer would be upstaging Farage and representing the Party more prominently than might be good for it.
Optimum result for the Kippers would, imo, be a very close second place. My guess is that's what they will get.
Rather depends how you are measuring close. The turnout will flatter the raw numbers.
Mr. Dawning, I bow to no man in my utter contempt for Gordon Brown. However, if I had been asked by Lord West to give my views on matters in which I had particular expertise I would have done so regardless of my feelings for his boss.
I have to say as time goes on and Cameron sinks lower and lower in my estimation Imight have to add a notch to my contempt meter. Maybe take it up to 11.
Be careful, Mr Llama.
It's a short step from that to dancing round Stonehenge with a posse of dwarves
Thank you, Mr. Charles, that is my pre-luncheon apéritif snorted over my keyboard.
Mr. Llama, the price has to suit the reader, not the writer.
On description: there's probably a little more in Treasure, but minimal description is a deliberate choice to help keep the pace rapid and the story light. In Kingdom Asunder it'll be quite a different kettle of monkeys.
Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
The criticism is because Jenrick is pretending to be just another ordinary person. He is not.
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
"From 3.8% at the General Election and 13% at the start of the campaign, they were by last weekend polling into the low-to-mid twenties – a near six-fold increase. When considering that polls conducted by Populus and Ashcroft did not include UKIP in their initial voting question as the Survation polls did, it is possible that the last two polls on the chart understate UKIP support by several points – meaning that it has continued to increase at a faster rate than the chart initially indicates. Already UKIP is within the margin of error of the Conservatives (shown by the overlap of the dashed blue and purple lines on the far right) and very slightly overlapping with the Liberal Democrats on the Survation poll (dashed orange line)."
My reading is that Ashcroft Eastleigh polls did prompt for Ukip.
Even if they didn't I regard this point as irrelevant. I don't believe the prompting is as big a deal as is suggested. The reallocation of DKs as in the header is by far a more important element.
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
The criticism is because Jenrick is pretending to be just another ordinary person. He is not.
Jenrick is a very Dickensian name. The name of a villian.
Question for anoraks: If Roger Helmer wins Newark and becomes MP, what according to British/EU law happens to MEP status? Does it go to the next in line on the list - as happens in the Israeli Knesset, do UKIP forfeit the the MEP spot, or is there another election for the spot?
Next on ukip's list, no election, I believe
Correct. We had some fun locally pointing out that UKIP's list was led by someone who was already campaigning to be somewhere else, but most voters didn't really care.
Incidentally, I should qualify my earlier assertion that I'd not been asked to help in Newark - two requests have since come through. I don't think any encouragement is being given to anyone to vote UKIP tactically (not clear if it would be helpful, in addition to the ethical considerations) but it's not sensible to fight every by-election as a money-no-object life-or-death struggle. Under current boundaries it's just not a very promising seat for us, black swans aside.
Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
The criticism is because Jenrick is pretending to be just another ordinary person. He is not.
Jenrick is a very Dickensian name. The name of a villian.
The Party being underestimated here is The Greens. In Newark's local rag 'The Advertiser' the candidate says he's winning votes by opposing fracking. That could stop UKIP's charge in Newark. UKIP really has the wrong policy on this by supporting what is clearly a tool of Agenda 21. The man behind Agenda 21 globally is Prince Charles. Most people have no idea what Charles' real role in the world is. He is the person who created the sustainable development mantra, and persuaded the UN to adopt it. The list of unsustainable activities includes farming, which is is why fracking is being used to clear the countryside. Those who fear its use in their area will vote to stop it. The Greens are surging nationally as a direct result. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sustainable-development-agenda-21-and.html
The Party being underestimated here is The Greens. In Newark's local rag 'The Advertiser' the candidate says he's winning votes by opposing fracking. That could stop UKIP's charge in Newark. UKIP really has the wrong policy on this by supporting what is clearly a tool of Agenda 21. The man behind Agenda 21 globally is Prince Charles. Most people have no idea what Charles' real role in the world is. He is the person who created the sustainable development mantra, and persuaded the UN to adopt it. The list of unsustainable activities includes farming, which is is why fracking is being used to clear the countryside. Those who fear its use in their area will vote to stop it. The Greens are surging nationally as a direct result. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sustainable-development-agenda-21-and.html
That sounds just about as sane, plausible and rational as David Icke
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Quite right. I assumed that Labour would be up in arms at the rise of UKIP - a movement that wishes to lay waste to everything they hold (or held) dear - but we're getting at best indifference and at worst the desire to flirt with Farage if it gives Cameron a prick. Still, at least that should put an end to the Labour pieties we heard on here when it was rumoured that some Tories had tactically voted for George Galloway in Bradford West.
The Party being underestimated here is The Greens. In Newark's local rag 'The Advertiser' the candidate says he's winning votes by opposing fracking. That could stop UKIP's charge in Newark. UKIP really has the wrong policy on this by supporting what is clearly a tool of Agenda 21. The man behind Agenda 21 globally is Prince Charles. Most people have no idea what Charles' real role in the world is. He is the person who created the sustainable development mantra, and persuaded the UN to adopt it. The list of unsustainable activities includes farming, which is is why fracking is being used to clear the countryside. Those who fear its use in their area will vote to stop it. The Greens are surging nationally as a direct result. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sustainable-development-agenda-21-and.html
That sounds just about as sane, plausible and rational as David Icke
I agree that on first sight, information you don't know can sound unlikely to be true, but there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from examining the evidence, and then deciding. People, however, usually prefer to imagine they know it all even without looking at the evidence. You appear to be entirely normal, ToryJim.
[Ladbroke's] prices could all change on Monday afternoon when Lord Ashcroft publishes his constituency poll.
With two former titans of the bookmaking industry financing UKIP and with donors likely to have access to the party's canvassing returns, one would have thought that party money loading on the kippers today would be the most reliable indicator of the gap being closed.
And yet you push out the prices for UKIP.
The UKIP ramping is beginning to appear like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
The Party being underestimated here is The Greens. In Newark's local rag 'The Advertiser' the candidate says he's winning votes by opposing fracking. That could stop UKIP's charge in Newark. UKIP really has the wrong policy on this by supporting what is clearly a tool of Agenda 21. The man behind Agenda 21 globally is Prince Charles. Most people have no idea what Charles' real role in the world is. He is the person who created the sustainable development mantra, and persuaded the UN to adopt it. The list of unsustainable activities includes farming, which is is why fracking is being used to clear the countryside. Those who fear its use in their area will vote to stop it. The Greens are surging nationally as a direct result. http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sustainable-development-agenda-21-and.html
That sounds just about as sane, plausible and rational as David Icke
I agree that on first sight, information you don't know can sound unlikely to be true, but there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from examining the evidence, and then deciding. People, however, usually prefer to imagine they know it all even without looking at the evidence. You appear to be entirely normal, ToryJim.
The trouble isn't that information has a credibility issue, it's that far too often information is twisted or that where a gap in information exists it is filled in with crazed supposition. I'm afraid that world politics is a lot less sexy and more humdrum than anyone would like to believe.
Mr. Punter, I agree with that sentiment, but if UKIP don't win it could be seen as the arresting of their momentum and be reported as people shifting from a protest vote to a serious mindset.
If Labour come third (unless the blues lose) then one of the main lines that will emerge will be of Miliband continuing to lead Labour to mediocrity.
Good try. Doesn't wash. It is precisely Labour voters who will push UKIP over the line. Why should we waste money and resources over an unwinnable seat at the GE ?
For years, PB has had a "Latvian homophobe" meme! Well, Roger Federer is now playing a "Latvian misogynist" in the French Open - Ernests Gulbis, who came up with this gem a few days ago regarding female tennis players:
"A woman needs to enjoy life a little bit more, needs to think about family, needs to think about kids."
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Quite right. I assumed that Labour would be up in arms at the rise of UKIP - a movement that wishes to lay waste to everything they hold (or held) dear - but we're getting at best indifference and at worst the desire to flirt with Farage if it gives Cameron a prick. Still, at least that should put an end to the Labour pieties we heard on here when it was rumoured that some Tories had tactically voted for George Galloway in Bradford West.
Tories voting for Galloway was not a rumour, it was a fact ! I believe UKIP will win here but lose at the GE.
[Ladbroke's] prices could all change on Monday afternoon when Lord Ashcroft publishes his constituency poll.
With two former titans of the bookmaking industry financing UKIP and with donors likely to have access to the party's canvassing returns, one would have thought that party money loading on the kippers today would be the most reliable indicator of the gap being closed.
And yet you push out the prices for UKIP.
The UKIP ramping is beginning to appear like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Question for anoraks: If Roger Helmer wins Newark and becomes MP, what according to British/EU law happens to MEP status? Does it go to the next in line on the list - as happens in the Israeli Knesset, do UKIP forfeit the the MEP spot, or is there another election for the spot?
Has the law changed ? If I remember correctly, Rev Paisley, Mr Hume were members of both.
It's all getting a bit The Thick Of It. It seem like Merkel and some of the other EPP leaders had a plan to switch out a different candidate to avoid setting the precedent that the candidate whose party got the most votes won. Cameron presumably saw that and thought he could use that to do the old John Major maneuver where you make a big stand about the federalist fixer they initially propose, he gets switched for different federalist fixer and you can come home and declare victory. But then one of the big German tabloids came out against the plot and Merkel seems to have reversed herself, but Cameron is still stuck with his big stand...
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Racial intolerance about Romanians who are racially... ummm... white.
[Ladbroke's] prices could all change on Monday afternoon when Lord Ashcroft publishes his constituency poll.
With two former titans of the bookmaking industry financing UKIP and with donors likely to have access to the party's canvassing returns, one would have thought that party money loading on the kippers today would be the most reliable indicator of the gap being closed.
And yet you push out the prices for UKIP.
The UKIP ramping is beginning to appear like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Yes. Sadly, even Shadsy cannot offer a candidate to receive negative votes. If that were mathematically possible, Clegg's Liberals would have achieved that too !
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Racial intolerance about Romanians who are racially... ummm... white.
I was in Newark today. There was a UKIP leafleteer in the marketplace annoying people outside Starbucks. She combined this with singing Rule Britannia, as people veered away from her. Not so much fruitcake as nut....
The 2010 Lib Dem vote carried with it a lot of protest unrelated to party values and policies. This will unthinkingly transfer to whoever is the new kid on the block just as it unthinkingly fuelled the 2010 Cleggasm.
The question in Newark is what proportion of the 2010 Lib Dem vote was protest and what genuine party identification. True Lib Dems would be no more likely to vote UKIP, even in by election circumstances, than I would be likely to vote communist. There is simply no fit between the values and policies of the two parties.
And downthread, Surby should be careful what he wishes for. If UKIP scrape a shock win on the back of Labour tactical votes, Ed Miliband will wake up on Friday morning to headlines of "UKIP takes over from Labour as the party of opposition in the North". And no logical attempt to claim Newark is not in "the North" will prevent such headlines and political comment.
[Ladbroke's] prices could all change on Monday afternoon when Lord Ashcroft publishes his constituency poll.
With two former titans of the bookmaking industry financing UKIP and with donors likely to have access to the party's canvassing returns, one would have thought that party money loading on the kippers today would be the most reliable indicator of the gap being closed.
And yet you push out the prices for UKIP.
The UKIP ramping is beginning to appear like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
The 2010 Lib Dem vote carried with it a lot of protest unrelated to party values and policies. This will unthinkingly transfer to whoever is the new kid on the block just as it unthinkingly fuelled the 2010 Cleggasm.
The question in Newark is what proportion of the 2010 Lib Dem vote was protest and what genuine party identification. The true Lib Dems would be no more likely to vote UKIP even in by election circumstances than I would be likely to vote communist. There is simply no fit between the values and policies of the two parties.
And downthread, Surby should be careful what he wishes for. If UKIP scrape a shock win on the back of Labour tactical votes, Ed Miliband will wake up on Friday morning to headlines of "UKIP takes over from Labour as the party of opposition in the North". And no logical attempt to claim Newark is not in "the North" will prevent such headlines and political comment.
[Ladbroke's] prices could all change on Monday afternoon when Lord Ashcroft publishes his constituency poll.
With two former titans of the bookmaking industry financing UKIP and with donors likely to have access to the party's canvassing returns, one would have thought that party money loading on the kippers today would be the most reliable indicator of the gap being closed.
And yet you push out the prices for UKIP.
The UKIP ramping is beginning to appear like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
The 2010 Lib Dem vote carried with it a lot of protest unrelated to party values and policies. This will unthinkingly transfer to whoever is the new kid on the block just as it unthinkingly fuelled the 2010 Cleggasm.
The question in Newark is what proportion of the 2010 Lib Dem vote was protest and what genuine party identification. The true Lib Dems would be no more likely to vote UKIP even in by election circumstances than I would be likely to vote communist. There is simply no fit between the values and policies of the two parties.
And downthread, Surby should be careful what he wishes for. If UKIP scrape a shock win on the back of Labour tactical votes, Ed Miliband will wake up on Friday morning to headlines of "UKIP takes over from Labour as the party of opposition in the North". And no logical attempt to claim Newark is not in "the North" will prevent such headlines and political comment.
[Ladbroke's] prices could all change on Monday afternoon when Lord Ashcroft publishes his constituency poll.
With two former titans of the bookmaking industry financing UKIP and with donors likely to have access to the party's canvassing returns, one would have thought that party money loading on the kippers today would be the most reliable indicator of the gap being closed.
And yet you push out the prices for UKIP.
The UKIP ramping is beginning to appear like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
I think a lot of Labour voters in Newark may be saying to themselves: "I voted Labour a few days ago in the Euro election, I'll be voting Labour in the general election in 11 months' time. Why not vote UKIP this time as a one-off?"
Who'd have though it? In Ladbrokes' Newark betting market the Bus Pass Elvis Party at 500/1 is quoted at half the 1000/1 odds on offer for the Monster Raving Loony Party Which only goes to show how things have seriously fallen apart since the esteemed John Loony of this parish left the latter to join the Tories.
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Racial intolerance about Romanians who are racially... ummm... white.
You are quite right, Socrates.
UKIP's rumoured border control system would most definitely not discriminate against Romanians or even Romani.
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Racial intolerance about Romanians who are racially... ummm... white.
The hidden sub text is of the Roma.
And the hidden sub text when Miliband talks about predator capitalist is American Jews.
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Racial intolerance about Romanians who are racially... ummm... white.
You are quite right, Socrates.
UKIP's rumoured border control system would most definitely not discriminate against Romanians or even Romani.
It really is amazing that supporters of parties that actually do discriminate against Asian and African immigrants manage to convince so many people that it is UKIP, who want to treat everyone the same, who are racist
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Racial intolerance about Romanians who are racially... ummm... white.
You are quite right, Socrates.
UKIP's rumoured border control system would most definitely not discriminate against Romanians or even Romani.
An immigration system that evaluated people from all countries equally is decidely less racist than ones which filter people from all black and brown countries but give a completely open pass to most of the white countries in the world.
UKIP support the former, while your party prefers to give white nations the advantage.
I think a lot of Labour voters in Newark may be saying to themselves: "I voted Labour a few days ago in the Euro election, I'll be voting Labour in the general election in 11 months' time. Why not vote UKIP this time as a one-off?"
At the risk of polluting the reputation of Newark for eternity?
"In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."
Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?
No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
We've had a PM of one of the big three countries for decades, but never seen it achieve much, with either party in power.
There's never been a formal candidate selection before. Look at the actual candidate selection process that happened in Dublin this year and try to tell me that Cameron wouldn't have been seriously influential if he'd still been in the party.
Why does the EPP even get to appoint the position anyway? They only got 28% of the seats.
I don't recall Cameron and the Conservatives saying anything during the Euro campaign about who their preferred choice was, so why all the fuss?
The fact that not one of the candidates came to Britain during the election campaign shows how irrelevant we are to the EU. We are not in the decision making loop but a protectorate ruled by stitch-ups on the continent.
Has Ashcroft an estimate of the turn-out? I'd have thought the lower it was, the better for UKIP...
Usually if you have two elections in a short period of time, turnout is quite a bit lower in the second election because voters get fed up with making the trek to the polling station. We saw that in 1999 when the Euro elections were held a few weeks after the locals, and turnout was 24%, the lowest ever.
I think a lot of Labour voters in Newark may be saying to themselves: "I voted Labour a few days ago in the Euro election, I'll be voting Labour in the general election in 11 months' time. Why not vote UKIP this time as a one-off?"
At the risk of polluting the reputation of Newark for eternity?
Not even Labour voters are that stupid.
At the risk of channeling Leo McGarry I think Labour voters are exactly that stupid. Well the ones that are committed. Their anti-Toryism trumps even their support for their own. Whether it can push Helmersaurus over the top I'm not sure.
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Racial intolerance about Romanians who are racially... ummm... white.
The hidden sub text is of the Roma.
And the hidden sub text when Miliband talks about predator capitalist is American Jews.
"Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance"
Well, I was supremely relaxed about voting for them in the Euros!
Comrade
Have you conducted a regression analysis between your state of relaxation and the anxiety induced in others by political policy?
I fear your purpureal tendencies are based on nothing more than a forlorn hope that aid to India will increase on the UK's exit from the EU.
I think we should be told.
Why would I want to aid to India to increase, Comrade Chancellor? All I have been pointing out for the last few months is that our annual "aid" to Brussels far outstrips our aid to India.
Besides, our aid to India is chicken-feed (as Comrade Boris would put it!) - 300 million Pounds divided by one billion Indians comes out as, what? Roughly 30p per Indian per year?
"In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."
Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?
No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
We've had a PM of one of the big three countries for decades, but never seen it achieve much, with either party in power.
There's never been a formal candidate selection before. Look at the actual candidate selection process that happened in Dublin this year and try to tell me that Cameron wouldn't have been seriously influential if he'd still been in the party.
Why does the EPP even get to appoint the position anyway? They only got 28% of the seats.
I don't recall Cameron and the Conservatives saying anything during the Euro campaign about who their preferred choice was, so why all the fuss?
The fact that not one of the candidates came to Britain during the election campaign shows how irrelevant we are to the EU. We are not in the decision making loop but a protectorate ruled by stitch-ups on the continent.
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Racial intolerance about Romanians who are racially... ummm... white.
You are quite right, Socrates.
UKIP's rumoured border control system would most definitely not discriminate against Romanians or even Romani.
It really is amazing that supporters of parties that actually do discriminate against Asian and African immigrants manage to convince so many people that it is UKIP, who want to treat everyone the same, who are racist
Sam
If you think UKIP's immigration policy is to compensate for the fall in immigration numbers from EU countries which may result from Brexit by increasing numbers let in from outside the EU, you are living in the same nuthouse as Tapestry.
It is pure sophistry attempting to decontaminate UKIP's racist policies. German neighbours are different from Romanians remember.
I think a lot of Labour voters in Newark may be saying to themselves: "I voted Labour a few days ago in the Euro election, I'll be voting Labour in the general election in 11 months' time. Why not vote UKIP this time as a one-off?"
At the risk of polluting the reputation of Newark for eternity?
Not even Labour voters are that stupid.
At the risk of channeling Leo McGarry I think Labour voters are exactly that stupid. Well the ones that are committed. Their anti-Toryism trumps even their support for their own. Whether it can push Helmersaurus over the top I'm not sure.
We saw in places like Rotherham traditional Labour voters choosing UKIP in large numbers. Those same people would never have voted for the Tories in a million years. There must be a fair number of the same type of voters in Newark.
When I ask about what UKIP immigration policy will be I get few answers. Eu and non EU equal of course, and undoubtably non racial. But how would UKIP decide numbers? Asylum seekers? Students? Family reunification? Marriage to non-UK nationals etc?
Expect UKIP to win by several percentage as a result of support from Labour voters wanting to embarrass the Tories.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Racial intolerance about Romanians who are racially... ummm... white.
You are quite right, Socrates.
UKIP's rumoured border control system would most definitely not discriminate against Romanians or even Romani.
It really is amazing that supporters of parties that actually do discriminate against Asian and African immigrants manage to convince so many people that it is UKIP, who want to treat everyone the same, who are racist
Sam
If you think UKIP's immigration policy is to compensate for the fall in immigration numbers from EU countries by increasing numbers let in from outside the EU, you are living in the same nuthouse as Tapestry.
It is pure sophistry designed to decontaminate UKIP's racist policies. Germans neighbours are different from Romanians remember.
Comments
The tory candidate looks like part of the problem. A person for whom mass immigration has worked extremely well, in terms of cheap labour and rocketing house prices.
Of course, one of the classic arguments for FPTP is that you get to see the programmes up front when you vote, while proportional systems usually result in hung parliaments and post-election negotiations. On the other hand, FPTP produces big parties offering programmes intended to embrace a broad tent, so it would be sadly a bit optimistic to maintain that studying them gives deep insight on what will actually happen.
Hitchens is the original fruitcake.
None of that prevents a late swing one way or the other but even if that does occur, it's not that the polls were wrong, just that they'd become out of date.
" one of the classic arguments for FPTP is that you get to see the programmes up front when you vote,"
To be accurate Nick, You get to see "promises" which may or may not be enacted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-27654654
Miliband upsetting the Taffia.
I hope UKIP come second, but beat Labour by a distance.
The trouble is that once he was MP he really stopped representing anyone to a large extent. He had his interests in Parliament - particularly armed forces welfare - but otherwise seemed to be too tied up in his own personal battles and lost interest in what he was supposed to be doing.
That said I suspect their mutual loathing went back long before that incident and was based, as someone said up-thread, on naturally opposing personality types. Mercer would have sniffed out Cameron as an unprincipled, multi-faced chancer who will say anything, do anything to attain and keep power Cameron would have recognised Mercer as a man who would not fall for the Cameron line of bullshit and therefore would cause him trouble.
My comment is true, but happy to accept that it may not be the whole story.
Archaeology is the search for fact ... not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
"X never ever marks the spot."
"X marks the spot."
That's a bet you cannot lose because if you did the increase in earnings will more than pay your debt to me, and if you win you can cut the price and get £50 from me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975708.stm
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Eastleigh-Second-Poll-Summary.pdf
and Corby
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CORBY-POLL-2-SUMMARY.pdf
It's some way off (hopeful of release this year), but the price might be even more difficult than usual to set, for reasons I can't go into just yet.
If Roger Helmer wins Newark and becomes MP, what according to British/EU law happens to MEP status? Does it go to the next in line on the list - as happens in the Israeli Knesset, do UKIP forfeit the the MEP spot, or is there another election for the spot?
"From 3.8% at the General Election and 13% at the start of the campaign, they were by last weekend polling into the low-to-mid twenties – a near six-fold increase. When considering that polls conducted by Populus and Ashcroft did not include UKIP in their initial voting question as the Survation polls did, it is possible that the last two polls on the chart understate UKIP support by several points – meaning that it has continued to increase at a faster rate than the chart initially indicates. Already UKIP is within the margin of error of the Conservatives (shown by the overlap of the dashed blue and purple lines on the far right) and very slightly overlapping with the Liberal Democrats on the Survation poll (dashed orange line)."
http://survation.com/ahead-of-polls-open-final-eastleigh-analysis/
Thats not right is it? Ashcroft did prompt for UKIP
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Eastleigh-25thFeb-30Realloc-BPC1-copy.pdf
"Hitchens is the original fruitcake."
True, but an interesting and intelligent fruitcake.
I have to say as time goes on and Cameron sinks lower and lower in my estimation Imight have to add a notch to my contempt meter. Maybe take it up to 11.
It's a short step from that to dancing round Stonehenge with a posse of dwarves
"I hope UKIP come second, but beat Labour by a distance."
Winning the seat would actually present one or two minor difficulties for UKIP. Helmer would be upstaging Farage and representing the Party more prominently than might be good for it.
Optimum result for the Kippers would, imo, be a very close second place. My guess is that's what they will get.
If Labour come third (unless the blues lose) then one of the main lines that will emerge will be of Miliband continuing to lead Labour to mediocrity.
P.S. Make your books longer. Add in a sub-plot, put in more description, you know what the world you have created looks like, sounds like, smells like tell me your reader.
On description: there's probably a little more in Treasure, but minimal description is a deliberate choice to help keep the pace rapid and the story light. In Kingdom Asunder it'll be quite a different kettle of monkeys.
Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
The criticism is because Jenrick is pretending to be just another ordinary person. He is not.
The ambivalence demonstrated by Labour during this by-election is a disgrace - a view based on Labour posters here who were ludicrously suggesting that resources not be wasted on a serious attempt.
Giving tacit encouragement to a party whose leader is happy to incite racial intolerance shames anyone and suggests that not a shred of principle remains in the Labour leadership.
Even if they didn't I regard this point as irrelevant. I don't believe the prompting is as big a deal as is suggested. The reallocation of DKs as in the header is by far a more important element.
What an absolute load of rubbish
The criticism is because Jenrick is pretending to be just another ordinary person. He is not.
Jenrick is a very Dickensian name. The name of a villian.
But that is the Labour play book. Stirring up racial hatred is what Labour do - see Sadiq Khan's speeches of recent date.
http://goo.gl/mUK8Io
Incidentally, I should qualify my earlier assertion that I'd not been asked to help in Newark - two requests have since come through. I don't think any encouragement is being given to anyone to vote UKIP tactically (not clear if it would be helpful, in addition to the ethical considerations) but it's not sensible to fight every by-election as a money-no-object life-or-death struggle. Under current boundaries it's just not a very promising seat for us, black swans aside.
I am off for Sunday lunch and thence to plot how to defeat the dastardly Morris Dancer in the latest PB Diplomacy game.
God Bless, all, and play nicely.
http://youtu.be/INrwJhmh3c8
EDIT
"2 dozen, 3 dozen target seats"
Jenrick is a very Dickensian name. The name of a villian.
See, I told you he was dodgy.
https://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/newark-ukip-now-31-to-win-first-mp/
With two former titans of the bookmaking industry financing UKIP and with donors likely to have access to the party's canvassing returns, one would have thought that party money loading on the kippers today would be the most reliable indicator of the gap being closed.
And yet you push out the prices for UKIP.
The UKIP ramping is beginning to appear like a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
:beware-women-called-Tess:
"A woman needs to enjoy life a little bit more, needs to think about family, needs to think about kids."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/french-open-2014-straighttalking-ernests-gulbis-sets-up-clash-with-roger-federer-9461927.html
I don't know if it's the photo, but are Tory rosettes now even losing their turquoise colour and becoming a darker shade of white?
Even Labour might beat the Tories if this goes viral
!
Have you conducted a regression analysis between your state of relaxation and the anxiety induced in others by political policy?
I fear your purpureal tendencies are based on nothing more than a forlorn hope that aid to India will increase on the UK's exit from the EU.
I think we should be told.
No doubt the vote will be squeezed but by 15%?
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7a0a53d8-e96c-11e3-bbc1-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product&siteedition=intl#axzz33C66z84J
The question in Newark is what proportion of the 2010 Lib Dem vote was protest and what genuine party identification. True Lib Dems would be no more likely to vote UKIP, even in by election circumstances, than I would be likely to vote communist. There is simply no fit between the values and policies of the two parties.
And downthread, Surby should be careful what he wishes for. If UKIP scrape a shock win on the back of Labour tactical votes, Ed Miliband will wake up on Friday morning to headlines of "UKIP takes over from Labour as the party of opposition in the North". And no logical attempt to claim Newark is not in "the North" will prevent such headlines and political comment.
In Ladbrokes' Newark betting market the Bus Pass Elvis Party at 500/1 is quoted at half the 1000/1 odds on offer for the Monster Raving Loony Party
Which only goes to show how things have seriously fallen apart since the esteemed John Loony of this parish left the latter to join the Tories.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27655894
UKIP's rumoured border control system would most definitely not discriminate against Romanians or even Romani.
See: http://bit.ly/1pJ8qHz
UKIP support the former, while your party prefers to give white nations the advantage.
Not even Labour voters are that stupid.
psychology
Jeremy Clarkson was also in the running for being PM.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7571973.stm
Besides, our aid to India is chicken-feed (as Comrade Boris would put it!) - 300 million Pounds divided by one billion Indians comes out as, what? Roughly 30p per Indian per year?
Who is your preferred candidate?
If you think UKIP's immigration policy is to compensate for the fall in immigration numbers from EU countries which may result from Brexit by increasing numbers let in from outside the EU, you are living in the same nuthouse as Tapestry.
It is pure sophistry attempting to decontaminate UKIP's racist policies. German neighbours are different from Romanians remember.
Will leave biggest green on the Conservatives, 8-11 was a great price and I still think they'll win, but I'm not ruling out UKIP now either.