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.
German children, are different to Romanian adults. That was the case put to Mr Farage by the interviewer.
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.
Im not saying that at all
Germans are the sam rac as Romanians in genereal, so why would it be racist to differentiate between the two on economic and social statistics?
Anyway, a huge majority of people of all political persuasions would prefer German neighbours to Romanians. There was a poll which confirmed this last week
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.
But if some Labour voters just become UKIP voters, that will still not be enough to beat the Tories.
"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.
It's largely self-inflicted, and the British can stop inflicting it on themselves any time they like.
UK Labour did the typical British passive-aggressive thing of opposing the candidate everyone else picked without actually proposing a different one - which was a real shame, because it would have been good to have a contested primary instead of just handing the slot over to Schulz. IIUC they also asked him not to campaign for them.
The Tories just refused to have anything to do with the process. If they really have any actual workable plans for the EU, as opposed a vague, incoherent sense of dissatisfaction, this would have been a great chance to nominate a candidate, get them into the debates and get their message out.
Give it a few cycles and they'll get with the program and stop dicking around, and British voters will be able to participate normally.
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.
The rate of immigration should be less than the rate of integration.
Anyone reckon Germany will be UK's ally in the EU ?
Actually yes - alliances work on a lot of different axes, based on mutual interests. Britain could resume the bombing of Dresden and they'd still work together when they needed each other to make a QMV majority.
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.
But if some Labour voters just become UKIP voters, that will still not be enough to beat the Tories.
The Survation Newark poll showed an 8 point gap between UKIP and the Conservatives, with Labour on 27%. A third of current-Labour would be enough.
If Farage is racist for pointing out there is a difference between Romanians and Germans, why do supporters of every other party make the same distinction?
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
Why should Juncker have campaigned in the UK for the euros? There was no party in the UK supporting his candidacy. Labour did not want to discuss Europe so Schultz did not visit.
It's likely some Labour voters in Newark will switch to UKIP in the hope of beating the Conservatives. UKIP are opponents. The Conservatives are the old enemy.
It's largely self-inflicted, and the British can stop inflicting it on themselves any time they like.
UK Labour did the typical British passive-aggressive thing of opposing the candidate everyone else picked without actually proposing a different one - which was a real shame, because it would have been good to have a contested primary instead of just handing the slot over to Schulz. IIUC they also asked him not to campaign for them.
The Tories just refused to have anything to do with the process. If they really have any actual workable plans for the EU, as opposed a vague, incoherent sense of dissatisfaction, this would have been a great chance to nominate a candidate, get them into the debates and get their message out.
Give it a few cycles and they'll get with the program and stop dicking around, and British voters will be able to participate normally.
So if we had put up a eurosceptic candidate who wanted to return some powers to the nation states, you think he would have got somewhere?
It's likely some Labour voters in Newark will switch to UKIP in the hope of beating the Conservatives. UKIP are opponents. The Conservatives are the old enemy.
The Newark open market is running short of clothes pegs !
When so many Brits deliver two fingers to the EU, is it surprising when EU politicians decide to canvass elsewhere?
We weren't the only ones to say "Stick It Up Your Juncker!" - for example, the French FN won their election too.
The French always stick spanners in the works yet never get the crap we get. They always refuse to ever allow reasonable CAP reform, they prevent trade talks going on unless they get special upfront conditions met, etc etc. Yet we're the bad Europeans. The only way for the British to win is not to play. The small increment of additional trade we get from a single market is more than made up for by the opportunity to sign more trade deals with the rest of the world and by being able to scrap half the regulations. And on top of that we'd have control of our borders and, you know, democracy.
If the rest of the EU doesn't want to accommodate us, let them have their broken, undemocratic, economically depressed, demographically doomed club. It's not the 1950s any more and there are far more options in the world.
Why should Juncker have campaigned in the UK for the euros? There was no party in the UK supporting his candidacy. Labour did not want to discuss Europe so Schultz did not visit.
Actually there was an EPP-affiliated party called 4 Freedoms that Londoners gripped by Juncker-mania could have voted for, but whoever does the David Axelrod role for the EPP probably made the right call about the likely return they'd get on any candidate time they might offer them.
If Farage is racist for pointing out there is a difference between Romanians and Germans, why do supporters of every other party make the same distinction?
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
At least, supporters of other parties, did not have a net negative score !
If Farage is racist for pointing out there is a difference between Romanians and Germans, why do supporters of every other party make the same distinction?
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
It's largely self-inflicted, and the British can stop inflicting it on themselves any time they like.
UK Labour did the typical British passive-aggressive thing of opposing the candidate everyone else picked without actually proposing a different one - which was a real shame, because it would have been good to have a contested primary instead of just handing the slot over to Schulz. IIUC they also asked him not to campaign for them.
The Tories just refused to have anything to do with the process. If they really have any actual workable plans for the EU, as opposed a vague, incoherent sense of dissatisfaction, this would have been a great chance to nominate a candidate, get them into the debates and get their message out.
Give it a few cycles and they'll get with the program and stop dicking around, and British voters will be able to participate normally.
So if we had put up a eurosceptic candidate who wanted to return some powers to the nation states, you think he would have got somewhere?
Would have been even less successful than our Eurovision entries
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.
So wanting lower immigration is what makes them racist now? There is nothing racist at all about UKIP's policies, and the difference was between a large group of Romanian men and a German family. Your party is the racist one, backing privileged white nations getting free access while putting up restrictions on everyone else, and you can't deny that even as you pump out your endless smears to everyone else. You're the new tim on this board apparently. We expect this crap from the McBrides on the left, but the fact Tories are doing this to fellow right-wingers just show how you lot and Labour are one and the same these days.
If Farage is racist for pointing out there is a difference between Romanians and Germans, why do supporters of every other party make the same distinction?
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
At least, supporters of other parties, did not have a net negative score !
Yes, I am not for one minute denying that UKIP supporters are less likely to want foreign neighbours of any kind, but the fact is that Farage made the same distinction as the majority of the British public, yet was accused of racism for it!
Why should Juncker have campaigned in the UK for the euros? There was no party in the UK supporting his candidacy. Labour did not want to discuss Europe so Schultz did not visit.
Current discrimination is entirely logical and based upon geo-politics. The UK has entered into a 'union' with other European countries based on the freedom of movement of people.
An acceptable argument can be made to withdraw from such union and to subsequently impose tighter (and less discriminatory) border controls on immigration.
An acceptable argument can be made, within the union, for restricting the rights of freedom of movement where there is wide disparity between the economic strength and prospects of constituent countries. The most likely way for such an argument to succeed would be for extended transitional arrangements; modifications to social security entitlements and payments; and, imposition of temporary quotas on movement.
An acceptable argument can be made within the union for policies which encourage, through fiscal incentive, the employment of local nationals/residents over migrants.
Instead UKIP has focussed on demonising two nationalities, Romanians and Bulgarians which has led to an odious debate about whether Brits prefer Germans as neighbours to 'gypsies'.
Appealing to populist anger and resentment is no substitute for rational and dispassionate consideration of the real issues.
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
If Farage is racist for pointing out there is a difference between Romanians and Germans, why do supporters of every other party make the same distinction?
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
Lot of racism about?
I dont consider differentiating between countries as racist, but if you did then that would be the only logical answer.
If Farage is racist for pointing out there is a difference between Romanians and Germans, why do supporters of every other party make the same distinction?
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net): Con: +1 (+63) Lab: +25 (+61) LD: +50 (+75) UKIP: -55 (+16)
At least, supporters of other parties, did not have a net negative score !
I think the figure (net) for Conservatives is -3%.
Broadly speaking, Poles, Chinese, Germans seem to be very welcome as neighbours. People from Romania, Pakistan, and Nigeria much less so.
Current discrimination is entirely logical and based upon geo-politics. The UK has entered into a 'union' with other European countries based on the freedom of movement of people.
An acceptable argument can be made to withdraw from such union and to subsequently impose tighter (and less discriminatory) border controls on immigration.
An acceptable argument can be made, within the union, for restricting the rights of freedom of movement where there is wide disparity between the economic strength and prospects of constituent countries. The most likely way for such an argument to succeed would be for extended transitional arrangements; modifications to social security entitlements and payments; and, imposition of temporary quotas on movement.
An acceptable argument can be made within the union for policies which encourage, through fiscal incentive, the employment of local nationals/residents over migrants.
Instead UKIP has focussed on demonising two nationalities, Romanians and Bulgarians which has led to an odious debate about whether Brits prefer Germans as neighbours to 'gypsies'.
Appealing to populist anger and resentment is no substitute for rational and dispassionate consideration of the real issues.
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.
"Instead UKIP has focussed on demonising two nationalities, Romanians and Bulgarians which has led to an odious debate about whether Brits prefer Germans as neighbours to 'gypsies'"
No they havent
The German element was brought into the debate by the LBC wally who played Farages wife and kids off against a group of Romanian men and said there was no difference in his eyes.
But the polling suggests a very different picture, even Lib Dems prefer German neighbours to Romanians
Tories moving out a little on BF, Labour now 65...
PP offering 3.4 on UKIP.
Sir Roderick and Surby sitting on the edge of their seats staring at a computer screen waiting for an earthquake.
The wind blows a discarded fag packet down the street.
"It's coming! It's coming! What did I tell you?"
If UKIP canvassing returns show there is a real prospect of the party winning Newark the movement on the markets will be sudden and heavy. It ain't happening. At least not yet.
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.
The Electoral Commission has ruled that they consider it inappropriate to be a member of both - it's obviously impossible to do both at once with any diligence. Not sure that has legal force, but I can't imagine Helmer wants to - he nearly stood down a few years ago, and it was only a squabble with the Tory party about the next name on the list (which I never understood, as I thought it was automatic) that pushed him into UKIP.
It's largely self-inflicted, and the British can stop inflicting it on themselves any time they like.
UK Labour did the typical British passive-aggressive thing of opposing the candidate everyone else picked without actually proposing a different one - which was a real shame, because it would have been good to have a contested primary instead of just handing the slot over to Schulz. IIUC they also asked him not to campaign for them.
The Tories just refused to have anything to do with the process. If they really have any actual workable plans for the EU, as opposed a vague, incoherent sense of dissatisfaction, this would have been a great chance to nominate a candidate, get them into the debates and get their message out.
Give it a few cycles and they'll get with the program and stop dicking around, and British voters will be able to participate normally.
So if we had put up a eurosceptic candidate who wanted to return some powers to the nation states, you think he would have got somewhere?
Who's the "we" there? If the Tories' group had put up a candidate I think he'd have lost, but the debates would have been a good platform to get their message out, if they have a coherent message. This is probably what they'll do next time - apparently some of the (non-British) members of the group were fairly unimpressed by the "put our fingers in our ears and hope the whole thing goes away" strategy.
Further along the scale there's clearly a fairly big EU-wide market for a general anti-EU candidate, but the question is whether the various strands have enough in common with each other to make a single platform. The other problem the nationalist parties currently have is that they understandably all want to be Less Fascist Than Thou, so given a scale of foreigner-dislike from 1 to 10, 1 doesn't want to be associated with 2, nor 2 with 3, nor 3 with 4, etc etc. But next time they would probably be well advised to come up with the some lowest-common-denominator EU reform principles, find someone respectable-sounding from the lower end of that scale to speak for them and all announce that they'd signed up for the Europe Of The Countries Common Platform or whatever. They might actually beat the largest party, which wouldn't get them the top job (since they couldn't get enough other groups to back them to get a majority, since a majority would strongly oppose their platform) but winning the election would send a very strong message.
One odd thing about East Anglia and East Midlands. The farmers there complain about lack of employable British unskilled labour. Therefore, they hire unskilled East Europeans.
Integration is certainly a good thing, but the Poles who settled around Newark in the late forties have integrated very well. One fellow with Polish heritage is sufficiently integrated to be LOTO.
How would UKIP assess how integrated a migrant community is?
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.
The rate of immigration should be less than the rate of integration.
Tories moving out a little on BF, Labour now 65...
PP offering 3.4 on UKIP.
Sir Roderick and Surby sitting on the edge of their seats staring at a computer screen waiting for an earthquake.
The wind blows a discarded fag packet down the street.
"It's coming! It's coming! What did I tell you?"
If UKIP canvassing returns show there is a real prospect of the party winning Newark the movement on the markets will be sudden and heavy. It ain't happening. At least not yet.
A strange thing to say
On May 10th the best price about UKIP was 11/2, now its 3/1
Tories moving out a little on BF, Labour now 65...
PP offering 3.4 on UKIP.
Sir Roderick and Surby sitting on the edge of their seats staring at a computer screen waiting for an earthquake.
The wind blows a discarded fag packet down the street.
"It's coming! It's coming! What did I tell you?"
If UKIP canvassing returns show there is a real prospect of the party winning Newark the movement on the markets will be sudden and heavy. It ain't happening. At least not yet.
The walls of my study are crammed with monitors. THe software automatically texts my mobile on "game changing" odds.
Tories moving out a little on BF, Labour now 65...
PP offering 3.4 on UKIP.
Sir Roderick and Surby sitting on the edge of their seats staring at a computer screen waiting for an earthquake.
The wind blows a discarded fag packet down the street.
"It's coming! It's coming! What did I tell you?"
If UKIP canvassing returns show there is a real prospect of the party winning Newark the movement on the markets will be sudden and heavy. It ain't happening. At least not yet.
A strange thing to say
On May 10th the best price about UKIP was 11/2, now its 3/1
I think people's attitudes towards foreign neighbours are formed by the media portrayal of different countries. News stories about Germany, Poland, and China mostly focus on their economic success and strong work ethic. Stories about Pakistan and Nigeria focus on stoning women to death, the murder of Christians, terrorism, and rampant corruption. Stories about Romania focus on criminal gangs.
Integration is certainly a good thing, but the Poles who settled around Newark in the late forties have integrated very well. One fellow with Polish heritage is sufficiently integrated to be LOTO.
How would UKIP assess how integrated a migrant community is?
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.
The rate of immigration should be less than the rate of integration.
The principle by which immigration should be judged (imo) is that the rate of integration is higher than the rate of immigration.
Your comments about post-war Polish immigration seem to implicitly accept the principle.
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.
The Electoral Commission has ruled that they consider it inappropriate to be a member of both - it's obviously impossible to do both at once with any diligence. Not sure that has legal force, but I can't imagine Helmer wants to - he nearly stood down a few years ago, and it was only a squabble with the Tory party about the next name on the list (which I never understood, as I thought it was automatic) that pushed him into UKIP.
Yes, Rupert Matthews was the next person down on the list and due to automatically succeed him. However Matthews is also a staunch EUsceptic BOOer and so wasn't popular at party HQ. They used the excuse that the publishing company he was director of had published a book with a golliwog on the cover and that they should be able to drop him and pass to to the next on the list as he was somehow "unsuitable".
It would have all got messy if the Tory establishment had pushed their place-skipping plan but Helmer saved them the row by staying on rather than risk the euphile underneath Matthews get the seat.
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.
The Electoral Commission has ruled that they consider it inappropriate to be a member of both - it's obviously impossible to do both at once with any diligence. Not sure that has legal force, but I can't imagine Helmer wants to - he nearly stood down a few years ago, and it was only a squabble with the Tory party about the next name on the list (which I never understood, as I thought it was automatic) that pushed him into UKIP.
Yes, Rupert Matthews was the next person down on the list and due to automatically succeed him. However Matthews is also a staunch EUsceptic BOOer and so wasn't popular at party HQ. They used the excuse that the publishing company he was director of had published a book with a golliwog on the cover and that they should be able to drop him and pass to to the next on the list as he was somehow "unsuitable".
It would have all got messy if the Tory establishment had pushed their place-skipping plan but Helmer saved them the row by staying on rather than risk the euphile underneath Matthews get the seat.
If Helmer wins, he'll certainly stand down as an MEP, and be succeeded by Councillor Jonathan Bullock. Jonathan was Conservative PPC in Gedling in 2001, and is an old friend of mine.
[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.
LD performance in by-elections so far this Parliament % share in 2010 -> % share at by-election (change in % pts)
1. Oldham East and Saddleworth - 13 January 2011: 31.6% -> 31.9% (+0.3%) 2. Barnsley Central - 03 March 2011: 17.3% -> 4.2% (-13.1%) 3. Leicester South - 05 May 2011: 26.9% -> 22.5% (-4.4%) 4. Belfast West - 09 June 2011 [did not stand] 5. Inverclyde - 30 June 2011: 13.3% -> 2.2% (-11.1%) 6. Feltham and Heston - 15 December 2011: 34.0% -> 27.7% (-6.3%) 7. Bradford West - 29 March 2012: 11.7% -> 4.6% (-7.1%) 8. Cardiff South and Penarth - 15 November 2012: 22.3% -> 10.8% (-11.4%) 9. Corby - 15 November 2012: 14.4% -> 4.9% (-9.5%) 10. Manchester Central - 15 November 2012: 26.6% -> 9.4% (-17.2%) 11. Croydon North - 29 November 2012: 14.0% -> 3.5% (-10.5%) 12. Middlesbrough - 29 November 2012: 19.9% -> 9.9% (-10.0%) 13. Rotherham - 29 November 2012: 16.0% -> 2.1% (-13.9%) 14. Eastleigh - 28 February 2013: 46.5% -> 32.1% (-14.5%) 15. Mid Ulster - 7 March 2013 [did not stand] 16. South Shields - 2 May 2013: 14.2% -> 1.4% (-12.8%) 17. Wythenshawe & Sale East - 13 February 2014: 22.3% -> 4.9% (-17.4%)
Good luck Roger.........I'm not sure what the good people of Newark need right now is rich Tory Robert Jenrick being parachuted down from Tory HQ to replace the 'bent' previous incumbent, the 'Right Dishonorable' Patrick Mercer'! What they surely need is 'common sense' politics from a true soldier of the 'peoples army'! UKIP to win in a battle of morales!
Tories - Running a good campaign despite picking the wrong candidate. The canvassing involves an A4 side of questions per voter, there have been plenty of leaflets, and they have the best shop front in Newark itself to go with the real HQ in the Conservative club. Will it be enough?
Labour - No noticeable shop front HQ in Newark. The worst canvass I have ever seen - after the Survation poll, the canvasser talked about them not having much chance of winning, but please vote for them anyway, rather than going "WE CAN WIN" and going for the anti-Tory vote. A couple of leaflets, and a stall in the market several times.
LibDems - The last time the Tories were in government, this would have been an odds-on LibDem win. Being in government with dismal poll ratings, I already knew this wasn't going to happen now, but their campaign has been awful. Saturday was the first time they've been spotted in the market. I was shocked to discover that the local LibDems have had *zero* help from the national party, and it shows. Do they want to lose their deposit and increase the 'Clegg must go' movement in the party? Is there some deal with the Tories around not fighting this one? Or have they simply ran out of money?
UKIP - There are a lot of them about. They don't seem to be doing any canvassing though, just delivering leaflets, so I would be surprised to see any proper polling day operation. That may make the difference. Because I loathe the party and particularly the candidate, seeing them win would be great. He personally loses hundreds of thousands in MEP's pay and allowances, Farage is upstaged and will forever regret not standing himself.
The worst result for me would be UKIP just losing, but I suppose Farage can be taunted that he would have made the difference had he stood.
Tories 1/4 - they may well win, but I wouldn't bet on them at those odds.
UKIP 3/1 - if there is a value bet, this is it, especially if the Ashdown poll shows they've left Labour clearly behind. I'd have preferred the 5/1 it was earlier though
Labour lots/1 - this is embarrassing for the official opposition in a seat they won under Blair.
LibDems even more/1 - waste of money. Is anyone offering odds on the deposit?
Comments
Germans are the sam rac as Romanians in genereal, so why would it be racist to differentiate between the two on economic and social statistics?
Anyway, a huge majority of people of all political persuasions would prefer German neighbours to Romanians. There was a poll which confirmed this last week
But if some Labour voters just become UKIP voters, that will still not be enough to beat the Tories.
Anyone reckon Germany will be UK's ally in the EU ?
UK Labour did the typical British passive-aggressive thing of opposing the candidate everyone else picked without actually proposing a different one - which was a real shame, because it would have been good to have a contested primary instead of just handing the slot over to Schulz. IIUC they also asked him not to campaign for them.
The Tories just refused to have anything to do with the process. If they really have any actual workable plans for the EU, as opposed a vague, incoherent sense of dissatisfaction, this would have been a great chance to nominate a candidate, get them into the debates and get their message out.
Give it a few cycles and they'll get with the program and stop dicking around, and British voters will be able to participate normally.
http://survation.com/newark-by-election-poll-survation-the-sun/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc&index=4&list=PL6lagmUq9-h0NlBzgr4KjHiuh1XCPh_qp
Spinal Tap - Stonehenge [couldn't find a good one from the movie, so this is from the reunion tour - 3 minutes in]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ_VbmQ2mdM
Comfortable with Romanian (German) family next door (net):
Con: +1 (+63)
Lab: +25 (+61)
LD: +50 (+75)
UKIP: -55 (+16)
If the rest of the EU doesn't want to accommodate us, let them have their broken, undemocratic, economically depressed, demographically doomed club. It's not the 1950s any more and there are far more options in the world.
STICK IT UP YOUR JUNCKER!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Freedoms_Party_(UK_EPP)
An acceptable argument can be made to withdraw from such union and to subsequently impose tighter (and less discriminatory) border controls on immigration.
An acceptable argument can be made, within the union, for restricting the rights of freedom of movement where there is wide disparity between the economic strength and prospects of constituent countries. The most likely way for such an argument to succeed would be for extended transitional arrangements; modifications to social security entitlements and payments; and, imposition of temporary quotas on movement.
An acceptable argument can be made within the union for policies which encourage, through fiscal incentive, the employment of local nationals/residents over migrants.
Instead UKIP has focussed on demonising two nationalities, Romanians and Bulgarians which has led to an odious debate about whether Brits prefer Germans as neighbours to 'gypsies'.
Appealing to populist anger and resentment is no substitute for rational and dispassionate consideration of the real issues.
Broadly speaking, Poles, Chinese, Germans seem to be very welcome as neighbours. People from Romania, Pakistan, and Nigeria much less so.
No they havent
The German element was brought into the debate by the LBC wally who played Farages wife and kids off against a group of Romanian men and said there was no difference in his eyes.
But the polling suggests a very different picture, even Lib Dems prefer German neighbours to Romanians
The wind blows a discarded fag packet down the street.
"It's coming! It's coming! What did I tell you?"
If UKIP canvassing returns show there is a real prospect of the party winning Newark the movement on the markets will be sudden and heavy. It ain't happening. At least not yet.
Further along the scale there's clearly a fairly big EU-wide market for a general anti-EU candidate, but the question is whether the various strands have enough in common with each other to make a single platform. The other problem the nationalist parties currently have is that they understandably all want to be Less Fascist Than Thou, so given a scale of foreigner-dislike from 1 to 10, 1 doesn't want to be associated with 2, nor 2 with 3, nor 3 with 4, etc etc. But next time they would probably be well advised to come up with the some lowest-common-denominator EU reform principles, find someone respectable-sounding from the lower end of that scale to speak for them and all announce that they'd signed up for the Europe Of The Countries Common Platform or whatever. They might actually beat the largest party, which wouldn't get them the top job (since they couldn't get enough other groups to back them to get a majority, since a majority would strongly oppose their platform) but winning the election would send a very strong message.
And, then complain that there are too many here !
How would UKIP assess how integrated a migrant community is?
On May 10th the best price about UKIP was 11/2, now its 3/1
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/newark-by-election/winning-party/bet-history/ukip/today
So a 10% move in their favour is nothing happening?
Can you now do a similar headline for Katainen?
Sometimes , I forget to charge my mobile !
Do you have a dueling scar, and a white cat on your knee though?
Your comments about post-war Polish immigration seem to implicitly accept the principle.
It would have all got messy if the Tory establishment had pushed their place-skipping plan but Helmer saved them the row by staying on rather than risk the euphile underneath Matthews get the seat.
% share in 2010 -> % share at by-election (change in % pts)
1. Oldham East and Saddleworth - 13 January 2011: 31.6% -> 31.9% (+0.3%)
2. Barnsley Central - 03 March 2011: 17.3% -> 4.2% (-13.1%)
3. Leicester South - 05 May 2011: 26.9% -> 22.5% (-4.4%)
4. Belfast West - 09 June 2011 [did not stand]
5. Inverclyde - 30 June 2011: 13.3% -> 2.2% (-11.1%)
6. Feltham and Heston - 15 December 2011: 34.0% -> 27.7% (-6.3%)
7. Bradford West - 29 March 2012: 11.7% -> 4.6% (-7.1%)
8. Cardiff South and Penarth - 15 November 2012: 22.3% -> 10.8% (-11.4%)
9. Corby - 15 November 2012: 14.4% -> 4.9% (-9.5%)
10. Manchester Central - 15 November 2012: 26.6% -> 9.4% (-17.2%)
11. Croydon North - 29 November 2012: 14.0% -> 3.5% (-10.5%)
12. Middlesbrough - 29 November 2012: 19.9% -> 9.9% (-10.0%)
13. Rotherham - 29 November 2012: 16.0% -> 2.1% (-13.9%)
14. Eastleigh - 28 February 2013: 46.5% -> 32.1% (-14.5%)
15. Mid Ulster - 7 March 2013 [did not stand]
16. South Shields - 2 May 2013: 14.2% -> 1.4% (-12.8%)
17. Wythenshawe & Sale East - 13 February 2014: 22.3% -> 4.9% (-17.4%)
Eight lost deposits for the LDs so far.
Newark 2010 result: CON 53.9%, LAB 22.3%, LD 20.0%, UKIP 3.8%
Labour - No noticeable shop front HQ in Newark. The worst canvass I have ever seen - after the Survation poll, the canvasser talked about them not having much chance of winning, but please vote for them anyway, rather than going "WE CAN WIN" and going for the anti-Tory vote. A couple of leaflets, and a stall in the market several times.
LibDems - The last time the Tories were in government, this would have been an odds-on LibDem win. Being in government with dismal poll ratings, I already knew this wasn't going to happen now, but their campaign has been awful. Saturday was the first time they've been spotted in the market. I was shocked to discover that the local LibDems have had *zero* help from the national party, and it shows. Do they want to lose their deposit and increase the 'Clegg must go' movement in the party? Is there some deal with the Tories around not fighting this one? Or have they simply ran out of money?
UKIP - There are a lot of them about. They don't seem to be doing any canvassing though, just delivering leaflets, so I would be surprised to see any proper polling day operation. That may make the difference. Because I loathe the party and particularly the candidate, seeing them win would be great. He personally loses hundreds of thousands in MEP's pay and allowances, Farage is upstaged and will forever regret not standing himself.
The worst result for me would be UKIP just losing, but I suppose Farage can be taunted that he would have made the difference had he stood.
Tories 1/4 - they may well win, but I wouldn't bet on them at those odds.
UKIP 3/1 - if there is a value bet, this is it, especially if the Ashdown poll shows they've left Labour clearly behind. I'd have preferred the 5/1 it was earlier though
Labour lots/1 - this is embarrassing for the official opposition in a seat they won under Blair.
LibDems even more/1 - waste of money. Is anyone offering odds on the deposit?