"In truth, it would have been a big, big leap for Labour to win Newark, even against an incumbent party, so failing to do so probably doesn’t quite count as a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Newark says good things about Labour. Quite the contrary.
“We always expected to come third,” say Labour spinners. Maybe. But if that’s true, it suggests a curious lack of ambition for a party that aspires to govern next year."
"If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.
Arguably, this was rational: the Lib Dems have scarce resources and have decided to concentrate them on those seats where they have a realistic chance of holding on; trying to make gains is almost entirely ruled out. Phil Cowley of Nottingham University has snappily dubbed this a Zulu strategy, Clegg’s redcoats retreating to the last line of mealie bags.
Prof Cowley persuasively says that’s “a sign of a party that is sensibly marshalling resources.”
Yes. But the fact that such marshalling is necessary risks painting an awkward picture of the Lib Dems as having to give up on any pretence of being a national party. Painful."
The IMF's warning is in second place on the "BBC's web site, Georges tweet and TSE's "huzzah" seem to be overshadowed.
"The International Monetary Fund warns George Osborne that accelerating house prices and low productivity pose the greatest threat to the UK's economic recovery. "
Anti Tory bias by the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation?
Colour me stunned.
Bolshevik? Don't make me laugh. The BBC is run by wealthy middle class people who want to keep their privileges. The fact it is considered left wing just shows how that concept has lost any meaning.
You don't expect the BBC to take a warning from the IMF seriously? The trouble is only the right have been prepared to criticise Auntie in the past. Many on the left are often unhappy about he BBC's reporting but are reluctant to openly criticise it for fear of playing into Murdoch etc hands. Unless the left complain about BBC bias the myth that it's the red menace will continue. Critiquing our ludicrous housing policy is the least we might expect.
Working and occasionally living in central Manchester, I'm surrounded by BBC employees, I was merely yanking their chains, as I know some of them read PB.
Nev Kemp@ChSuptNevKemp·1h Love this:89yr old veteran reported missing by care home who said he can't go to Normandy for #DDay70 remembrance. We've found him there!
FPT: rcs1000 said: "I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level."
TSE: "So would I."
And there we have it: the modernisation project is complete. People like Sean Fear and myself were old Tory stalwarts until 4 years ago. I suspect that there might have been others too (Socrates? Sunil?) as well. We have been lost to UKIP, you may well be lost to the Liberal Democrats.
So who will be left?
We were all one solid team until very recently. But the lasting legacy of Cameron could be the near total destruction of the Conservative Party.
I am with JackW, Charles, TSE and others on this. In the1980s the tories were right on the economics but socially repulsive which put me in the SDP at the time. In the early 2000s they struggled even on the economics but it was obvious that Brown had us on the path to disaster. Still, I voted for Howard with a heavy heart.
With Cameron and Osborne I feel far more comfortable. I would still prefer the party had far more "ordinary" folk at the top and fewer public school boys but they are liberal in a very traditional sense. Can one really imagine the tories of the dark days introducing gay marriage?
I feel happier supporting the current Conservative party than I have in my entire life. I have major reservations about the EU but I would rather vote Labour than UKIP (as long as I was not living in Kirkcaldy of course).
You were SDPer, OMG, you sandal wearer.
The Tory party has always had a curious relationship with gays and gay rights, we're the party riddled with homosexuals, and we introduced Section 28, but Thatcher voted to decriminalise homosexuality, and her government decriminalised homosexuality in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Weird to think, a little over 30 years ago, in parts of this country it was a crime to be gay.
They also took on the AIDS epidemic from a health point of view and not a moral point of view, which saved the lives of many gay men.
Pretty sure if you break down the surge in the older voter to which daily newspaper do you read, top would come the Daily Express.I guess these are long-term Express readers.They have regular crusades,about arthritis and getting out of Europe.A relatively small but influential paper for its' loyal readership.
If I were advising UKIP, after last night I would advise them to put almost all their resources into the following seats:
Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Waveney, Castle Point, Thurrock, the Thanets, Eastleigh.
That's eight seats. If they won eight, that would be an incredible result for them. Personally, I still think that zero is the most likely seat tally next year.
Let's face it, even I can agree the UKIP ground game is shit. Whilst they were working themselves up into a state of feverish excitement in Newark town square, the Tories were crunching data using powerful software and banging on doors.
No doubt (if Crosby/Shapps) have any sense, they're already over Thanet South like a rash, preparing the ground and canvassing like mad.
I doubt UKIP are doing anything similar.
I see Paddy Power's odds on Thanet South have shifted over the course of the morning, with the Conservatives shortening and UKIP lengthening. Funny that.
FPT TOPPING said: Peter Allen on Radio5 in France this morning, was excellent, really from the heart. It sounded as uncomposed as I have heard him: "the boys...they were just boys...we should look at our own children and then think of them with rifles thrust into their hands...just boys..."
very moving. Peter Allen is great.
One of the VETs on R4 this morning was pointing out that man of those boys in the graveyards of France were even younger than they are declared because they had lied about their age to sign up a year early, as he had done himself. Many would have been as young as my daughter. A really different world and a different generation.
My Mum lied about her age to join the land army, she was only 15 when war broke out but was desperate to leave home as her stepmother beat her regularly.
She was stationed on the Isle of Wight where she became friendly with a girl called Mavis. When leave came my Mum had nowhere to go so went home with Mavis, met her brother who was on leave and they married in 1944, my eldest brother was born in May 1945.
Good story. It was indeed a different world.
Not better in many respects although it was in some but different. If I was to try and summarise what we have lost in a single phrase it would be the infantilisation of adults and the loss of a sense of duty.
If I were advising UKIP, after last night I would advise them to put almost all their resources into the following seats:
Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Waveney, Castle Point, Thurrock, the Thanets, Eastleigh.
That's eight seats. If they won eight, that would be an incredible result for them. Personally, I still think that zero is the most likely seat tally next year.
Let's face it, even I can agree the UKIP ground game is shit. Whilst they were working themselves up into a state of feverish excitement in Newark town square, the Tories were crunching data using powerful software and banging on doors.
No doubt (if Crosby/Shapps) have any sense, they're already over Thanet South like a rash, preparing the ground and canvassing like mad.
I doubt UKIP are doing anything similar.
I see Paddy Power's odds on Thanet South have shifted over the course of the morning, with the Conservatives shortening and UKIP lengthening. Funny that.
Charles - the point I was trying to make is that JackW, TSE and yourself said that you'd vote Lib Dem if the Tories made a pact with UKIP. However, a plurality of UKIP's voters (any many of its members) *were* party of the Conservative Party until very recent memory.
Thatcher cleaned up the constituency from which UKIP draws its main vote. Even up until 5-8 years ago, you and I might not agree on all policy matters, but we'd be sitting in the same meeting rooms listening to pep-talks from our local PPC/MP before going out knocking on doors and leafleting together.
Now we are talking about how we'd do anything to stay as far apart from one another politically as possible. I think it's crazy.
I agree. UKIP are, say, around 15% in the general polls - I'd be delighted to have the 8% who were former Tories back. It's some of your fellow travellers that give me real cause for concern
As for your 'change in order to conserve', I've heard it all before. I'm not having a go at you, and I just find it patronising. I consider myself socially progressive. I am anti-capital punishment, pro-liberal reform in prisons and big on civil liberties. Socrates is a republican and even bigger on civil liberties. We're not neatherdal idiots.
I never said you were. I was using gay marriage as an example of one of 'big things' which drove people to UKIP. I simply don't believe it's Europe that is the major issue - I can accept it could be immigration.
Besides which, the Conservative Party problem was never policy. It was that people distrusted its motives and thought the people in it were odious, pompous, patronising, self-serving, self-centered prats and fools, who cared about nobody and nothing but enriching themselves and their mates, didn't give a flying crap about the average Joe, and would sell their own mothers to advance their careers.
*That* was the detoxification that needed addressing. It never has been.
All politicians - including Farage and Helmer are like that at some level.
I dislike the way politics has become a career path. I'm all in favour of reforming the system. But voting UKIP won't make anything better - and it will most likely make things much worse. Stay around and reform things from the inside, if it's possible.
I also don't get the relevance of Labour winning the seat in 1997. That was an election where Labour got a 170+ majority and still only took the seat by less than a thousand votes. Who seriously thinks Labour is going to win that sort of majority next year? And why is that the standard that needs to be matched? That is before we factor in the boundary change effects.
Well, I have not brought up 1997 for those reasons, but I suppose the main point I would make is that by-elections are different, and Labour might reasonably have expected to outperform their national swings in Newark by squeezing more out of the Lib Dem vote, and due to greater motivation to vote by government opponents.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
I don't think it is yet, but leveraged properly it could be. The fact that UKIP make such obvious catastrophic judgment calls like for instance Farage declaring his seat before recess makes things even easier.
Why did people in Newark back UKIP so heavily at the bookies?
People enjoy losing money ?
A case of heart over head imho - no one likes to lose money, but they can get carried away when they start believing their own hype. I can't recall when 'ramping' was so prevalent on PB, or expectation management gone so awry.
Brilliant! Twitter Nev Kemp @ChSuptNevKemp · 1h Love this:89yr old veteran reported missing by care home who said he can't go to Normandy for #DDay70 remembrance. We've found him there!
UKIP will outlive the SDP, because the times are right for UKIP. Insurgent right wing parties are gaining, and established centre-right parties faltering, right across Europe. At constituency level, the Conservative and Labour parties are empty shells, compared to the early 80s.
Nev Kemp@ChSuptNevKemp·1h Love this:89yr old veteran reported missing by care home who said he can't go to Normandy for #DDay70 remembrance. We've found him there!
How fucking Dare they tell him he can't go. Bet its a bunch of loser Labour voting box tickers.
Maybe it will even qualify as emotional neglect for the purposes of the government's new law. Tell a child a fairy tale and enjoy a spell in the Scrubs. Seems reasonable enough to me.
Given the gender split shown in the thread header and of course the massive lead for no amongst women in Scotland I think the time has come to acknowledge that they are indeed the wiser sex.
"In truth, it would have been a big, big leap for Labour to win Newark, even against an incumbent party, so failing to do so probably doesn’t quite count as a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Newark says good things about Labour. Quite the contrary.
“We always expected to come third,” say Labour spinners. Maybe. But if that’s true, it suggests a curious lack of ambition for a party that aspires to govern next year."
"If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.
Arguably, this was rational: the Lib Dems have scarce resources and have decided to concentrate them on those seats where they have a realistic chance of holding on; trying to make gains is almost entirely ruled out. Phil Cowley of Nottingham University has snappily dubbed this a Zulu strategy, Clegg’s redcoats retreating to the last line of mealie bags.
Prof Cowley persuasively says that’s “a sign of a party that is sensibly marshalling resources.”
Yes. But the fact that such marshalling is necessary risks painting an awkward picture of the Lib Dems as having to give up on any pretence of being a national party. Painful."
Nick Clegg as Michael Caine, and Lord Oakeshott as the pissed preacher?
Why did people in Newark back UKIP so heavily at the bookies?
People enjoy losing money ?
A case of heart over head imho - no one likes to lose money, but they can get carried away when they start believing their own hype. I can't recall when 'ramping' was so prevalent on PB, or expectation management gone so awry.
I got a bit carried away, laid off my stake for the Conservatives on Betfair.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
Chris Mason @ChrisMasonBBC · 5m George Mudie, the Scottish-born MP for Leeds East, has told @BBCLeeds he would like to see his home nation leave the UK.
Interesting, I wonder if any other MPs will break cover?
Why did people in Newark back UKIP so heavily at the bookies?
People enjoy losing money ?
A case of heart over head imho - no one likes to lose money, but they can get carried away when they start believing their own hype. I can't recall when 'ramping' was so prevalent on PB, or expectation management gone so awry.
I'm doing a thread on that Loughborough Uni *poll*
Headline is "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is"
Honestly, the number of Kippers that believed it was true on twitter was unbelievable, even Roger Helmer tweeted it.
FPT: rcs1000 said: "I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level."
TSE: "So would I."
And there we have it: the modernisation project is complete. People like Sean Fear and myself were old Tory stalwarts until 4 years ago. I suspect that there might have been others too (Socrates? Sunil?) as well. We have been lost to UKIP, you may well be lost to the Liberal Democrats.
So who will be left?
We were all one solid team until very recently. But the lasting legacy of Cameron could be the near total destruction of the Conservative Party.
I am with JackW, Charles, TSE and others on this. In the1980s the tories were right on the economics but socially repulsive which put me in the SDP at the time. In the early 2000s they struggled even on the economics but it was obvious that Brown had us on the path to disaster. Still, I voted for Howard with a heavy heart.
With Cameron and Osborne I feel far more comfortable. I would still prefer the party had far more "ordinary" folk at the top and fewer public school boys but they are liberal in a very traditional sense. Can one really imagine the tories of the dark days introducing gay marriage?
I feel happier supporting the current Conservative party than I have in my entire life. I have major reservations about the EU but I would rather vote Labour than UKIP (as long as I was not living in Kirkcaldy of course).
In the 1980s the Tories won over 40% of the vote, and large parliamentary majorities.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
It depends if large numbers of voters defect to the Conservatives from left wing parties to stop UKIP. I don't think that will happen to a very large extent. Left wing voters vote for left wing parties because they mostly agree with them.
FPT: rcs1000 said: "I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level."
TSE: "So would I."
And there we have it: the modernisation project is complete. People like Sean Fear and myself were old Tory stalwarts until 4 years ago. I suspect that there might have been others too (Socrates? Sunil?) as well. We have been lost to UKIP, you may well be lost to the Liberal Democrats.
So who will be left?
We were all one solid team until very recently. But the lasting legacy of Cameron could be the near total destruction of the Conservative Party.
For the avoidance of doubt, if I wanted to vote for a reactionary party, that scapegoats and whips up fears about immigration, I'd vote for Labour, why would I want to vote UKIP?
Do you think any of those things must apply to someone who is economically dry who..
(a) thinks that having open-borders is as puristically ideological as having firmly closed-borders, and would prefer a sensible middle-ground of an annual limit on net migration (to be debated and decided upon by parliament) (b) thinks our political future is best served through a network of open global trading relationships, and a reinvigorated national democracy, and for both of these things to happen wants to withdraw from the political and economic union of the EU (but still maintain free and open trade with it, and continuing to positively engage with the continent, cooperating wherever possible in matters of mutual interest)
And (c) could you ever exist in the same party as someone like that?
We have always had open-borders with Ireland, and Irish citizens have always had the right to live and work here. Would you suggest changing that?
Or, is the issue you have with open borders the fact that the EU now contains a lot of poorer countries, and that - for the first time - you are seeing competition for jobs from foreigners not just in highly skilled sectors (like finance, oil & gas, or pharmaceuticals), but at the lower end of the wage scale?
The issue I have is numbers. I was comfortable with 50-70k net immigrants per year (as were most people) and I am uncomfortable with 200-300k per year, and the UK population having ballooned by 3 million+ over the last 10 years.
It would have been very easy for UKIP supporters in Newark to get trapped in a bubble of confirmation bias. Hanging around the centre of town, as I did for a couple of days, it was tricky finding anyone who wasn't going to vote UKIP. But then, what type of people are in town during the middle of the day? People who don't have jobs. Retired people. Market traders. In other words, exactly the sort of people who vote UKIP.
It would have been very natural to assume that the polls and the betting were all wrong. It was one of those situations when you were almost better off not being "on the ground".
Tim Reid @TimReidBBC 6 mins George Mudie, Scots born Labour MP for Leeds East: If I were in Scotland I would be voting for an independent Scotland..."
If Mudie were an MP for a Scottish constituency, he'd now be in a basement getting the rubber truncheon treatment.
FPT: rcs1000 said: "I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level."
TSE: "So would I."
And there we have it: the modernisation project is complete. People like Sean Fear and myself were old Tory stalwarts until 4 years ago. I suspect that there might have been others too (Socrates? Sunil?) as well. We have been lost to UKIP, you may well be lost to the Liberal Democrats.
So who will be left?
We were all one solid team until very recently. But the lasting legacy of Cameron could be the near total destruction of the Conservative Party.
For the avoidance of doubt, if I wanted to vote for a reactionary party, that scapegoats and whips up fears about immigration, I'd vote for Labour, why would I want to vote UKIP?
Do you think any of those things must apply to someone who is economically dry who..
(a) thinks that having open-borders is as puristically ideological as having firmly closed-borders, and would prefer a sensible middle-ground of an annual limit on net migration (to be debated and decided upon by parliament) (b) thinks our political future is best served through a network of open global trading relationships, and a reinvigorated national democracy, and for both of these things to happen wants to withdraw from the political and economic union of the EU (but still maintain free and open trade with it, and continuing to positively engage with the continent, cooperating wherever possible in matters of mutual interest)
And (c) could you ever exist in the same party as someone like that?
a) no, b) no, c) yes
There's lots of people I like and admire in the Tory Party who believe in a) and b), but I don't think they'd ever run a poster that was as nasty as this
Well, that's something then. Thanks for that. Because that is me. Which means you and I could be in the same party.
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
FPT: rcs1000 said: "I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level."
TSE: "So would I."
I am with JackW, Charles, TSE and others on this. In the1980s the tories were right on the economics but socially repulsive which put me in the SDP at the time. In the early 2000s they struggled even on the economics but it was obvious that Brown had us on the path to disaster. Still, I voted for Howard with a heavy heart.
With Cameron and Osborne I feel far more comfortable. I would still prefer the party had far more "ordinary" folk at the top and fewer public school boys but they are liberal in a very traditional sense. Can one really imagine the tories of the dark days introducing gay marriage?
I feel happier supporting the current Conservative party than I have in my entire life. I have major reservations about the EU but I would rather vote Labour than UKIP (as long as I was not living in Kirkcaldy of course).
You were SDPer, OMG, you sandal wearer.
The Tory party has always had a curious relationship with gays and gay rights, we're the party riddled with homosexuals, and we introduced Section 28, but Thatcher voted to decriminalise homosexuality, and her government decriminalised homosexuality in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Weird to think, a little over 30 years ago, in parts of this country it was a crime to be gay.
They also took on the AIDS epidemic from a health point of view and not a moral point of view, which saved the lives of many gay men.
I'll have you know that I was a founder member of the SDP along with Polly and the Area Party Secretary in Dundee and Angus for a time. I even stood for them for the local council on occasion (in no hope seats of course in respect of which there was plenty of choice).
Unfortunately it was not just gays in the 80s and 90s, it was single parents, the unemployed, drug users, immigrants, pretty much every minority or vulnerable group going. It really wasn't nice and the nasty party tag for the tories was well earned. If UKIP help the tories lose that element it will have served a useful purpose.
Given the gender split shown in the thread header and of course the massive lead for no amongst women in Scotland I think the time has come to acknowledge that they are indeed the wiser sex.
I said after the 2010 election that we should restrict the franchise to mothers - or at least give mothers an extra vote for each of their children under voting age.
The reason why UKIP are not going to win a Westminster seat in a by-election or at the next GE is because they do have a serious problem with women voters. It is why UKIP are now repeatedly putting up Diane James or Suzanne Evans as their spokesperson in media interviews recently.
Given the gender split shown in the thread header and of course the massive lead for no amongst women in Scotland I think the time has come to acknowledge that they are indeed the wiser sex.
Tim Reid @TimReidBBC 6 mins George Mudie, Scots born Labour MP for Leeds East: If I were in Scotland I would be voting for an independent Scotland..."
If Mudie were an MP for a Scottish constituency, he'd now be in a basement getting the rubber truncheon treatment.
How does one become a Labour MP in a Scottish Constituency?
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
FPT: rcs1000 said: "I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level."
TSE: "So would I."
And there we have it: the modernisation project is complete. People like Sean Fear and myself were old Tory stalwarts until 4 years ago. I suspect that there might have been others too (Socrates? Sunil?) as well. We have been lost to UKIP, you may well be lost to the Liberal Democrats.
So who will be left?
We were all one solid team until very recently. But the lasting legacy of Cameron could be the near total destruction of the Conservative Party.
For the avoidance of doubt, if I wanted to vote for a reactionary party, that scapegoats and whips up fears about immigration, I'd vote for Labour, why would I want to vote UKIP?
Do you think any of those things must apply to someone who is economically dry who..
(a) thinks that having open-borders is as puristically ideological as having firmly closed-borders, and would prefer a sensible middle-ground of an annual limit on net migration (to be debated and decided upon by parliament) (b) thinks our political future is best served through a network of open global trading relationships, and a reinvigorated national democracy, and for both of these things to happen wants to withdraw from the political and economic union of the EU (but still maintain free and open trade with it, and continuing to positively engage with the continent, cooperating wherever possible in matters of mutual interest)
And (c) could you ever exist in the same party as someone like that?
a) no, b) no, c) yes
There's lots of people I like and admire in the Tory Party who believe in a) and b), but I don't think they'd ever run a poster that was as nasty as this
Well, that's something then. Thanks for that. Because that is me. Which means you and I could be in the same party.
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
I've read this thread and your comments on it. What more precisely would the Tories have to DO regarding "change" to win back your support?
"In truth, it would have been a big, big leap for Labour to win Newark, even against an incumbent party, so failing to do so probably doesn’t quite count as a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Newark says good things about Labour. Quite the contrary.
“We always expected to come third,” say Labour spinners. Maybe. But if that’s true, it suggests a curious lack of ambition for a party that aspires to govern next year."
"If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.
Arguably, this was rational: the Lib Dems have scarce resources and have decided to concentrate them on those seats where they have a realistic chance of holding on; trying to make gains is almost entirely ruled out. Phil Cowley of Nottingham University has snappily dubbed this a Zulu strategy, Clegg’s redcoats retreating to the last line of mealie bags.
Prof Cowley persuasively says that’s “a sign of a party that is sensibly marshalling resources.”
Yes. But the fact that such marshalling is necessary risks painting an awkward picture of the Lib Dems as having to give up on any pretence of being a national party. Painful."
Nick Clegg as Michael Caine, and Lord Oakeshott as the pissed preacher?
YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE...... class line
Clegg=Michael Caine Cable=Stanley Baxter
Lembit=Hookie
UKIP are the hordes of Zulus...
It all fits now...
'Fruitcakes coming from the South East UK Sir, hundreds of em....'
Stand by for the moment where the Kippers stop fighting and start singing 'Big Yellow Taxi' to the remaining few..
If I were advising UKIP, after last night I would advise them to put almost all their resources into the following seats:
Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Waveney, Castle Point, Thurrock, the Thanets, Eastleigh.
That's eight seats. If they won eight, that would be an incredible result for them. Personally, I still think that zero is the most likely seat tally next year.
Let's face it, even I can agree the UKIP ground game is shit. Whilst they were working themselves up into a state of feverish excitement in Newark town square, the Tories were crunching data using powerful software and banging on doors.
No doubt (if Crosby/Shapps) have any sense, they're already over Thanet South like a rash, preparing the ground and canvassing like mad.
I doubt UKIP are doing anything similar.
I see Paddy Power's odds on Thanet South have shifted over the course of the morning, with the Conservatives shortening and UKIP lengthening. Funny that.
That was me, when you alluded to it this morning.
2010 LD got 15% in Thanet South. How much do you think the anti-UKIP faction of current-LD have? 10 votes?
"In truth, it would have been a big, big leap for Labour to win Newark, even against an incumbent party, so failing to do so probably doesn’t quite count as a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Newark says good things about Labour. Quite the contrary.
“We always expected to come third,” say Labour spinners. Maybe. But if that’s true, it suggests a curious lack of ambition for a party that aspires to govern next year."
"If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.
Arguably, this was rational: the Lib Dems have scarce resources and have decided to concentrate them on those seats where they have a realistic chance of holding on; trying to make gains is almost entirely ruled out. Phil Cowley of Nottingham University has snappily dubbed this a Zulu strategy, Clegg’s redcoats retreating to the last line of mealie bags.
Prof Cowley persuasively says that’s “a sign of a party that is sensibly marshalling resources.”
Yes. But the fact that such marshalling is necessary risks painting an awkward picture of the Lib Dems as having to give up on any pretence of being a national party. Painful."
Nick Clegg as Michael Caine, and Lord Oakeshott as the pissed preacher?
YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE...... class line
Clegg=Michael Caine Cable=Stanley Baxter
Lembit=Hookie
UKIP are the hordes of Zulus...
It all fits now...
'Fruitcakes coming from the North West Sir, hundreds of em....'
Stand by for the moment where the Kippers stop fighting and start singing 'Big Yellow Taxi' to the remaining few..
FPT: rcs1000 said: "I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level."
TSE: "So would I."
And there we have it: the modernisation project is complete. People like Sean Fear and myself were old Tory stalwarts until 4 years ago. I suspect that there might have been others too (Socrates? Sunil?) as well. We have been lost to UKIP, you may well be lost to the Liberal Democrats.
So who will be left?
We were all one solid team until very recently. But the lasting legacy of Cameron could be the near total destruction of the Conservative Party.
I am with JackW, Charles, TSE and others on this. In the1980s the tories were right on the economics but socially repulsive which put me in the SDP at the time. In the early 2000s they struggled even on the economics but it was obvious that Brown had us on the path to disaster. Still, I voted for Howard with a heavy heart.
With Cameron and Osborne I feel far more comfortable. I would still prefer the party had far more "ordinary" folk at the top and fewer public school boys but they are liberal in a very traditional sense. Can one really imagine the tories of the dark days introducing gay marriage?
I feel happier supporting the current Conservative party than I have in my entire life. I have major reservations about the EU but I would rather vote Labour than UKIP (as long as I was not living in Kirkcaldy of course).
In the 1980s the Tories won over 40% of the vote, and large parliamentary majorities.
True and the party has always been a broad church (as is Labour of course). But in the 1980s their opposition was split and broadly laughable.
"In truth, it would have been a big, big leap for Labour to win Newark, even against an incumbent party, so failing to do so probably doesn’t quite count as a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Newark says good things about Labour. Quite the contrary.
“We always expected to come third,” say Labour spinners. Maybe. But if that’s true, it suggests a curious lack of ambition for a party that aspires to govern next year."
"If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.
Arguably, this was rational: the Lib Dems have scarce resources and have decided to concentrate them on those seats where they have a realistic chance of holding on; trying to make gains is almost entirely ruled out. Phil Cowley of Nottingham University has snappily dubbed this a Zulu strategy, Clegg’s redcoats retreating to the last line of mealie bags.
Prof Cowley persuasively says that’s “a sign of a party that is sensibly marshalling resources.”
Yes. But the fact that such marshalling is necessary risks painting an awkward picture of the Lib Dems as having to give up on any pretence of being a national party. Painful."
Nick Clegg as Michael Caine, and Lord Oakeshott as the pissed preacher?
YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE...... class line
Clegg=Michael Caine Cable=Stanley Baxter
Lembit=Hookie
UKIP are the hordes of Zulus...
It all fits now...
'Fruitcakes coming from the North West Sir, hundreds of em....'
Stand by for the moment where the Kippers stop fighting and start singing 'Big Yellow Taxi' to the remaining few..
Big Chief Clown standing in the middle of them, with a pottery pint pot on his head, conducting the choir.
If I were advising UKIP, after last night I would advise them to put almost all their resources into the following seats:
Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Waveney, Castle Point, Thurrock, the Thanets, Eastleigh.
That's eight seats. If they won eight, that would be an incredible result for them. Personally, I still think that zero is the most likely seat tally next year.
Let's face it, even I can agree the UKIP ground game is shit. Whilst they were working themselves up into a state of feverish excitement in Newark town square, the Tories were crunching data using powerful software and banging on doors.
No doubt (if Crosby/Shapps) have any sense, they're already over Thanet South like a rash, preparing the ground and canvassing like mad.
I doubt UKIP are doing anything similar.
I see Paddy Power's odds on Thanet South have shifted over the course of the morning, with the Conservatives shortening and UKIP lengthening. Funny that.
That was me, when you alluded to it this morning.
2010 LD got 15% in Thanet South. How much do you think the anti-UKIP faction of current-LD have? 10 votes?
There were nearly 7,000 LD voters in Thanet South, so I'd guess more than 10.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
The Tories are the political equivalent of Trigger's broom. The name and some aspects survive, but the substance is quite different.
FPT: rcs1000 said: "I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level."
TSE: "So would I."
And there we have it: the modernisation project is complete. People like Sean Fear and myself were old Tory stalwarts until 4 years ago. I suspect that there might have been others too (Socrates? Sunil?) as well. We have been lost to UKIP, you may well be lost to the Liberal Democrats.
So who will be left?
We were all one solid team until very recently. But the lasting legacy of Cameron could be the near total destruction of the Conservative Party.
For the avoidance of doubt, if I wanted to vote for a reactionary party, that scapegoats and whips up fears about immigration, I'd vote for Labour, why would I want to vote UKIP?
Do you think any of those things must apply to someone who is economically dry who..
(a) thinks that having open-borders is as puristically ideological as having firmly closed-borders, and would prefer a sensible middle-ground of an annual limit on net migration (to be debated and decided upon by parliament) (b) thinks our political future is best served through a network of open global trading relationships, and a reinvigorated national democracy, and for both of these things to happen wants to withdraw from the political and economic union of the EU (but still maintain free and open trade with it, and continuing to positively engage with the continent, cooperating wherever possible in matters of mutual interest)
And (c) could you ever exist in the same party as someone like that?
a) no, b) no, c) yes
There's lots of people I like and admire in the Tory Party who believe in a) and b), but I don't think they'd ever run a poster that was as nasty as this
Well, that's something then. Thanks for that. Because that is me. Which means you and I could be in the same party.
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
The first 3, fair comment. But is "Kipper" really derogatory? To me it seems more like LibDem or Tory?
"In truth, it would have been a big, big leap for Labour to win Newark, even against an incumbent party, so failing to do so probably doesn’t quite count as a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Newark says good things about Labour. Quite the contrary.
“We always expected to come third,” say Labour spinners. Maybe. But if that’s true, it suggests a curious lack of ambition for a party that aspires to govern next year."
"If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.
Arguably, this was rational: the Lib Dems have scarce resources and have decided to concentrate them on those seats where they have a realistic chance of holding on; trying to make gains is almost entirely ruled out. Phil Cowley of Nottingham University has snappily dubbed this a Zulu strategy, Clegg’s redcoats retreating to the last line of mealie bags.
Prof Cowley persuasively says that’s “a sign of a party that is sensibly marshalling resources.”
Yes. But the fact that such marshalling is necessary risks painting an awkward picture of the Lib Dems as having to give up on any pretence of being a national party. Painful."
Nick Clegg as Michael Caine, and Lord Oakeshott as the pissed preacher?
YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE...... class line
Clegg=Michael Caine Cable=Stanley Baxter
Lembit=Hookie
UKIP are the hordes of Zulus...
It all fits now...
'Fruitcakes coming from the North West Sir, hundreds of em....'
Stand by for the moment where the Kippers stop fighting and start singing 'Big Yellow Taxi' to the remaining few..
I'm so doing a thread on this, tonight.
Lieutenant John Cable: The dems doesn't like more than one disaster in a day.
Bromhead Clegg: Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets guardian readers at their breakfast.
"In truth, it would have been a big, big leap for Labour to win Newark, even against an incumbent party, so failing to do so probably doesn’t quite count as a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Newark says good things about Labour. Quite the contrary.
“We always expected to come third,” say Labour spinners. Maybe. But if that’s true, it suggests a curious lack of ambition for a party that aspires to govern next year."
"If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.
Arguably, this was rational: the Lib Dems have scarce resources and have decided to concentrate them on those seats where they have a realistic chance of holding on; trying to make gains is almost entirely ruled out. Phil Cowley of Nottingham University has snappily dubbed this a Zulu strategy, Clegg’s redcoats retreating to the last line of mealie bags.
Prof Cowley persuasively says that’s “a sign of a party that is sensibly marshalling resources.”
Yes. But the fact that such marshalling is necessary risks painting an awkward picture of the Lib Dems as having to give up on any pretence of being a national party. Painful."
Nick Clegg as Michael Caine, and Lord Oakeshott as the pissed preacher?
YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE...... class line
Clegg=Michael Caine Cable=Stanley Baxter
Lembit=Hookie
UKIP are the hordes of Zulus...
It all fits now...
'Fruitcakes coming from the North West Sir, hundreds of em....'
Stand by for the moment where the Kippers stop fighting and start singing 'Big Yellow Taxi' to the remaining few..
I'm so doing a thread on this, tonight.
Lieutenant John Cable: The dems doesn't like more than one disaster in a day.
Bromhead Clegg: Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets guardian readers at their breakfast.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
The Tories are the political equivalent of Trigger's broom. The name and some aspects survive, but the substance is quite different.
It's not a bad way to survive, continuity where possible, innovation where necessary the core of the conservative ethos.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
It depends if large numbers of voters defect to the Conservatives from left wing parties to stop UKIP. I don't think that will happen to a very large extent. Left wing voters vote for left wing parties because they mostly agree with them.
Left wing voters do for sure. But a lot of Labour and LD voters have been instinctively anti-Tory up to now, rather than positively left wing - hence Labour's dismal "We are not the Tories" pitch over the last few years. If being a Tory is no longer seen as toxic because UKIP has assumed that mantle it would be sensational news for the Tories. They could start to contemplate getting 40%+ of the national vote again.
Why did people in Newark back UKIP so heavily at the bookies?
People enjoy losing money ?
A case of heart over head imho - no one likes to lose money, but they can get carried away when they start believing their own hype. I can't recall when 'ramping' was so prevalent on PB, or expectation management gone so awry.
I'm doing a thread on that Loughborough Uni *poll*
Headline is "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is"
Honestly, the number of Kippers that believed it was true on twitter was unbelievable, even Roger Helmer tweeted it.
It was just embarrassing. The chances that all 5 "numbers of voters" are exactly divisible by a number like 21 (say, between 15 & 25) are about 200,000-1. They made up a percentage they wanted and multiplied by 21.
If I were advising UKIP, after last night I would advise them to put almost all their resources into the following seats:
Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Waveney, Castle Point, Thurrock, the Thanets, Eastleigh.
That's eight seats. If they won eight, that would be an incredible result for them. Personally, I still think that zero is the most likely seat tally next year.
Let's face it, even I can agree the UKIP ground game is shit. Whilst they were working themselves up into a state of feverish excitement in Newark town square, the Tories were crunching data using powerful software and banging on doors.
No doubt (if Crosby/Shapps) have any sense, they're already over Thanet South like a rash, preparing the ground and canvassing like mad.
I doubt UKIP are doing anything similar.
I see Paddy Power's odds on Thanet South have shifted over the course of the morning, with the Conservatives shortening and UKIP lengthening. Funny that.
That was me, when you alluded to it this morning.
2010 LD got 15% in Thanet South. How much do you think the anti-UKIP faction of current-LD have? 10 votes?
There were nearly 7,000 LD voters in Thanet South, so I'd guess more than 10.
Alas, their numbers have thinned somewhat. 1,170 at the EU Parliament vote for the Thanet District Council area.
Why did people in Newark back UKIP so heavily at the bookies?
People enjoy losing money ?
A case of heart over head imho - no one likes to lose money, but they can get carried away when they start believing their own hype. I can't recall when 'ramping' was so prevalent on PB, or expectation management gone so awry.
I'm doing a thread on that Loughborough Uni *poll*
Headline is "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is"
Honestly, the number of Kippers that believed it was true on twitter was unbelievable, even Roger Helmer tweeted it.
It was just embarrassing. The chances that all 5 "numbers of voters" are exactly divisible by a number like 21 (say, between 15 & 25) are about 200,000-1. They made up a percentage they wanted and multiplied by 21.
It would have been very easy for UKIP supporters in Newark to get trapped in a bubble of confirmation bias. Hanging around the centre of town, as I did for a couple of days, it was tricky finding anyone who wasn't going to vote UKIP. But then, what type of people are in town during the middle of the day? People who don't have jobs. Retired people. Market traders. In other words, exactly the sort of people who vote UKIP.
It would have been very natural to assume that the polls and the betting were all wrong. It was one of those situations when you were almost better off not being "on the ground".
The offline equivalent of reading the comments on the Telegraph website...
Why did people in Newark back UKIP so heavily at the bookies?
People enjoy losing money ?
A case of heart over head imho - no one likes to lose money, but they can get carried away when they start believing their own hype. I can't recall when 'ramping' was so prevalent on PB, or expectation management gone so awry.
I'm doing a thread on that Loughborough Uni *poll*
Headline is "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is"
Honestly, the number of Kippers that believed it was true on twitter was unbelievable, even Roger Helmer tweeted it.
It was just embarrassing. The chances that all 5 "numbers of voters" are exactly divisible by a number like 21 (say, between 15 & 25) are about 200,000-1. They made up a percentage they wanted and multiplied by 21.
Why did people in Newark back UKIP so heavily at the bookies?
People enjoy losing money ?
A case of heart over head imho - no one likes to lose money, but they can get carried away when they start believing their own hype. I can't recall when 'ramping' was so prevalent on PB, or expectation management gone so awry.
I'm doing a thread on that Loughborough Uni *poll*
Headline is "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is"
Honestly, the number of Kippers that believed it was true on twitter was unbelievable, even Roger Helmer tweeted it.
It was just embarrassing. The chances that all 5 "numbers of voters" are exactly divisible by a number like 21 (say, between 15 & 25) are about 200,000-1. They made up a percentage they wanted and multiplied by 21.
Brilliant! Twitter Nev Kemp @ChSuptNevKemp · 1h Love this:89yr old veteran reported missing by care home who said he can't go to Normandy for #DDay70 remembrance. We've found him there!
Could one of the thread's statisticians tell us whether there is any way of using Benford's law or something similar for assessing the reliability of reported polls?
I usually discount them until we get proper accreditation (and the Loughborough students one was obvious rubbish), but it would be useful to know if there are back-up checks to common sense.
Because it's one poll that is bouncing around the MOE. Look at the trend.
Haven't you noticed that the Tories are currently out -performing the pollsters by 2% in the locals/euros and by-elections while Labour...... look at the trend:)
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
It depends if large numbers of voters defect to the Conservatives from left wing parties to stop UKIP. I don't think that will happen to a very large extent. Left wing voters vote for left wing parties because they mostly agree with them.
Left wing voters do for sure. But a lot of Labour and LD voters have been instinctively anti-Tory up to now, rather than positively left wing - hence Labour's dismal "We are not the Tories" pitch over the last few years. If being a Tory is no longer seen as toxic because UKIP has assumed that mantle it would be sensational news for the Tories. They could start to contemplate getting 40%+ of the national vote again.
Of course I am biased, but I would say the "anyone but the Tories" are voting UKIP. They dont think of them as "nasty" because they are affected by the things that UKIP are talking about.
Seems a very strange thing that people on here are revelling in the downfall of a party that increased its share by almost 600% while everyone else lost votes.
All the mainstream media and probably most of the public see it as UKIP being the new opposition in another constituency
Brilliant! Twitter Nev Kemp @ChSuptNevKemp · 1h Love this:89yr old veteran reported missing by care home who said he can't go to Normandy for #DDay70 remembrance. We've found him there!
Wonderful!
I'll second that - I hope he receives a standing ovation from the 'in-mates' on his return..!
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
The first 3, fair comment. But is "Kipper" really derogatory? To me it seems more like LibDem or Tory?
Wikipedia says the derivation of Tory was "originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label"
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
Really? How are they going to do that? Telling current UKIP sympathisers they are wrong, if not actually fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists? Cameron and clique changing policies to address the concerns of said voters? Just how is the Conservative Party going to strangle the life out of UKIP?
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
I don't think it is yet, but leveraged properly it could be. The fact that UKIP make such obvious catastrophic judgment calls like for instance Farage declaring his seat before recess makes things even easier.
Agree Farage's judgement and UKIP's generally is disastrous. The hubris in defeat is both a laugh and a gift.
"In truth, it would have been a big, big leap for Labour to win Newark, even against an incumbent party, so failing to do so probably doesn’t quite count as a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Newark says good things about Labour. Quite the contrary.
“We always expected to come third,” say Labour spinners. Maybe. But if that’s true, it suggests a curious lack of ambition for a party that aspires to govern next year."
"If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.
Arguably, this was rational: the Lib Dems have scarce resources and have decided to concentrate them on those seats where they have a realistic chance of holding on; trying to make gains is almost entirely ruled out. Phil Cowley of Nottingham University has snappily dubbed this a Zulu strategy, Clegg’s redcoats retreating to the last line of mealie bags.
Prof Cowley persuasively says that’s “a sign of a party that is sensibly marshalling resources.”
Yes. But the fact that such marshalling is necessary risks painting an awkward picture of the Lib Dems as having to give up on any pretence of being a national party. Painful."
Nick Clegg as Michael Caine, and Lord Oakeshott as the pissed preacher?
YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE...... class line
Clegg=Michael Caine Cable=Stanley Baxter
Lembit=Hookie
UKIP are the hordes of Zulus...
It all fits now...
'Fruitcakes coming from the North West Sir, hundreds of em....'
Stand by for the moment where the Kippers stop fighting and start singing 'Big Yellow Taxi' to the remaining few..
Peter Curran @moridura 9 mins IpsosMORI: Satisfaction ratings for Alistair Darling in freefall: +5% in September, +3% in December, -3% in February and -16% in June.
That's a good question - this is a bit weasely, but:
(1) Start showing appreciation to its members and supporters and treating them with absolute respect - any advisor, or elected representative, saying anything different to be shown the door instantly (2) That means not only what they say but spending genuine time with them and listening to them (3) Listening means hearing and responding to what they are saying, rearticulating and playing back their messages, until its clear to the members and supporters that the leadership have understood (4) Following through on that, actually *doing something about it* based on it what's been said (5) Publicly making the case for Conservatism from first principles and leading the argument (not apologising for Conservative things they do, like deficit reduction, 40% tax etc.) (6) When its clear that the members and leaders are at odds, express geniune understanding of their position, take the time to try and lead them and explain why its necessary and then make the absolute best effort to mitigate any impact
Some examples where Cameron screwed up on this, include; Lisbon, UKIP, Gay marriage, and (if not sanctioned) the blind-eye turned to modernists who went around insulting the party faithful. Cameron has lost my confidence because he doesn't really believe anything, and changes his angle so often, I just don't trust him.
Like Thatcher, he should spend more time talking to backbenchers and visiting Conservative associations to make speeches, meet ordinary members, thank them and make his case. He should lay out his repatriation objectives for EU 2017 so people know he's sincere. He should include immigration within that. He should spell out the consequences if he doesn't get it - including neutrality from him, or recommending a NO vote if it fails.
He should balance up the gay marriage (done now, but was a mistake for him to do it) message with an extremely strong pro-family message. He should have raised IHT threshold and reform stamp duty as a gesture of goodwill. Pushed for, argued and held a free-vote on hunting even if it failed... Spelt out his aspirations for a future recovery of the defence budget and the integrity of the armed forces.
He should do all of this through speeches from 1st principles to lead the public and endeavour to *win the intellectual argument*
In other words, he should do what is necessary to convince his natural supporters he is one of them (a natural Conservative) in Dowing Street delivering for them. Not treat them as a convenient mule on which he can piggyback the ambitions of his own career.
That's a good question - this is a bit weasely, but:
(1) Start showing appreciation to its members and supporters and treating them with absolute respect - any advisor, or elected representative, saying anything different to be shown the door instantly (2) That means not only what they say but spending genuine time with them and listening to them (3) Listening means hearing and responding to what they are saying, rearticulating and playing back their messages, until its clear to the members and supporters that the leadership have understood (4) Following through on that, actually *doing something about it* based on it what's been said (5) Publicly making the case for Conservatism from first principles and leading the argument (not apologising for Conservative things they do, like deficit reduction, 40% tax etc.) (6) When its clear that the members and leaders are at odds, express geniune understanding of their position, take the time to try and lead them and explain why its necessary and then make the absolute best effort to mitigate any impact
Some examples where Cameron screwed up on this, include; Lisbon, UKIP, Gay marriage, and (if not sanctioned) the blind-eye turned to modernists who went around insulting the party faithful. Cameron has lost my confidence because he doesn't really believe anything, and changes his angle so often, I just don't trust him.
Like Thatcher, he should spend more time talking to backbenchers and visiting Conservative associations to make speeches, meet ordinary members, thank them and make his case. He should lay out his repatriation objectives for EU 2017 so people know he's sincere. He should include immigration within that. He should spell out the consequences if he doesn't get it - including neutrality from him, or recommending a NO vote if it fails.
He should balance up the gay marriage (done now, but was a mistake for him to do it) message with an extremely strong pro-family message. He should have raised IHT threshold and reform stamp duty as a gesture of goodwill. Pushed for, argued and held a free-vote on hunting even if it failed... Spelt out his aspirations for a future recovery of the defence budget and the integrity of the armed forces.
He should do all of this through speeches from 1st principles to lead the public and endeavour to *win the intellectual argument*
In other words, he should do what is necessary to convince his natural supporters he is one of them (a natural Conservative) in Dowing Street delivering for them. Not treat them as a convenient mule on which he can piggyback the ambitions of his own career.
FPT: rcs1000 said: "I think there are a number of Conservative voters on this board - like JackW and Charles, for example - who have said they would vote LibDem in the event of a UKIP/Con alliance. I do not believe they are alone, and I would be very surprised if the LibDems did not see their vote share increase in Eastleigh from the by-election level."
TSE: "So would I."
And there we have it: the modernisation project is complete. People like Sean Fear and myself were old Tory stalwarts until 4 years ago. I suspect that there might have been others too (Socrates? Sunil?) as well. We have been lost to UKIP, you may well be lost to the Liberal Democrats.
So who will be left?
We were all one solid team until very recently. But the lasting legacy of Cameron could be the near total destruction of the Conservative Party.
I am with JackW, Charles, TSE and others on this. In the1980s the tories were right on the economics but socially repulsive which put me in the SDP at the time. In the early 2000s they struggled even on the economics but it was obvious that Brown had us on the path to disaster. Still, I voted for Howard with a heavy heart.
With Cameron and Osborne I feel far more comfortable. I would still prefer the party had far more "ordinary" folk at the top and fewer public school boys but they are liberal in a very traditional sense. Can one really imagine the tories of the dark days introducing gay marriage?
I feel happier supporting the current Conservative party than I have in my entire life. I have major reservations about the EU but I would rather vote Labour than UKIP (as long as I was not living in Kirkcaldy of course).
In the 1980s the Tories won over 40% of the vote, and large parliamentary majorities.
True and the party has always been a broad church (as is Labour of course). But in the 1980s their opposition was split and broadly laughable.
And now in the 2010s the party itself has split and is broadly laughing at that.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
Really? How are they going to do that? Telling current UKIP sympathisers they are wrong, if not actually fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists? Cameron and clique changing policies to address the concerns of said voters? Just how is the Conservative Party going to strangle the life out of UKIP?
The Conservatives' best strategy in relation to UKIP is largely to ignore it (it depends on the oxygen of publicity), and in constituencies where it remains relevant, to squeeze like an accordion, first where necessary the anti-UKIP vote to ensure that UKIP is defeated and then the UKIP vote to ensure that Labour is defeated.
In due course, UKIP will suffer the Magnificent Ambersons fate:
"Something had happened. A thing which, years ago, had been the eagerest hope of many, many good citizens of the town, and now it had come at last; George Amberson Mainafer had got his comeuppance. He got it three times filled, and running over. But those who had so longed for it were not there to see it, and they never knew it. Those who were still living had forgotten all about it and all about him."
Why did people in Newark back UKIP so heavily at the bookies?
People enjoy losing money ?
A case of heart over head imho - no one likes to lose money, but they can get carried away when they start believing their own hype. I can't recall when 'ramping' was so prevalent on PB, or expectation management gone so awry.
I'm doing a thread on that Loughborough Uni *poll*
Headline is "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is"
Honestly, the number of Kippers that believed it was true on twitter was unbelievable, even Roger Helmer tweeted it.
It was just embarrassing. The chances that all 5 "numbers of voters" are exactly divisible by a number like 21 (say, between 15 & 25) are about 200,000-1. They made up a percentage they wanted and multiplied by 21.
Newark would have been a good result under normal circumstances but would have been a touch closer imo but some of the potential Ukip vote is being held back by the political pressure from the TV.
It's weird how the europhile political class can open the borders even though the majority of people privately disagree. As long as they have a few hundred unelected people in TV news rooms censor the negative consequences and shout "racist" loud and often enough at anyone who disagrees with open borders *publicly* then democracy breaks down.
Anyway, can't be helped as like the political class the telly people are so insulated from the consequences of their actions they can feel nicely morally superior with no payback.
The rate of immigration should be lower than the rate of integration. The guardianista telly people can't change that reality all they're doing is hiding it long enough to ensure the maximum amount of damage is done.
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
The first 3, fair comment. But is "Kipper" really derogatory? To me it seems more like LibDem or Tory?
Wikipedia says the derivation of Tory was "originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label"
It's more about me being badged as a "Kipper" and then all sorts of traits being attributed to that, from what were formally my fellow Conservatives.
Newark would have been a good result under normal circumstances but would have been a touch closer imo but some of the potential Ukip vote is being held back by the political pressure from the TV.
It's weird how the europhile political class can open the borders even though the majority of people privately disagree. As long as they have a few hundred unelected people in TV news rooms censor the negative consequences and shout "racist" loud and often enough at anyone who disagrees with open borders *publicly* then democracy breaks down.
Anyway, can't be helped as like the political class the telly people are so insulated from the consequences of their actions they can feel nicely morally superior with no payback.
The rate of immigration should be lower than the rate of integration. The guardianista telly people can't change that reality all they're doing is hiding it long enough to ensure the maximum amount of damage is done.
So, the people didn't vote the way you wanted, huh? And now you need to find a scapegoat.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
It depends if large numbers of voters defect to the Conservatives from left wing parties to stop UKIP. I don't think that will happen to a very large extent. Left wing voters vote for left wing parties because they mostly agree with them.
Left wing voters do for sure. But a lot of Labour and LD voters have been instinctively anti-Tory up to now, rather than positively left wing - hence Labour's dismal "We are not the Tories" pitch over the last few years. If being a Tory is no longer seen as toxic because UKIP has assumed that mantle it would be sensational news for the Tories. They could start to contemplate getting 40%+ of the national vote again.
Yup. That's exactly what the modernisers think. I think they're badly mistaken, and I think the evidence so far supports me on that.
The centre-left will not vote for them unless they change so much that they are no longer recognisably Conservative in the economic sense. Just the social sense isn't good enough, and the left won't trust them on that either. Meanwhile they will definitely lose their right flank to UKIP.
Mr Llama I don't know exactly how it will be done but the Tory party has been a major part of the political landscape for well over 200 years. It has at times been weaker and at others more dominant and it has shown itself to have an ability to adjust and survive. I said it was more likely that the Tories would kill UKIP than the reverse, I don't rule out the survival of UKIP but it won't be at the expense of the Tory party.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
Really? How are they going to do that? Telling current UKIP sympathisers they are wrong, if not actually fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists? Cameron and clique changing policies to address the concerns of said voters? Just how is the Conservative Party going to strangle the life out of UKIP?
The Conservatives' best strategy in relation to UKIP is largely to ignore it (it depends on the oxygen of publicity), and in constituencies where it remains relevant, to squeeze like an accordion, first where necessary the anti-UKIP vote to ensure that UKIP is defeated and then the UKIP vote to ensure that Labour is defeated.
In due course, UKIP will suffer the Magnificent Ambersons fate:
"Something had happened. A thing which, years ago, had been the eagerest hope of many, many good citizens of the town, and now it had come at last; George Amberson Mainafer had got his comeuppance. He got it three times filled, and running over. But those who had so longed for it were not there to see it, and they never knew it. Those who were still living had forgotten all about it and all about him."
Jesus! If you cant see that that quote is how members of the country's fastest growing party see the establishment then there is no hope for you
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
The first 3, fair comment. But is "Kipper" really derogatory? To me it seems more like LibDem or Tory?
Wikipedia says the derivation of Tory was "originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label"
Suffragette was also originally an insult.
There's quite a history of that kind of thing I believe.
It does work both ways! It's more about me being badged as a "Cameroon" and then all sorts of traits being attributed to that, from what were formally my fellow Conservatives.
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
The first 3, fair comment. But is "Kipper" really derogatory? To me it seems more like LibDem or Tory?
Wikipedia says the derivation of Tory was "originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label"
It's more about me being badged as a "Kipper" and then all sorts of traits being attributed to that, from what were formally my fellow Conservatives.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
Really? How are they going to do that? Telling current UKIP sympathisers they are wrong, if not actually fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists? Cameron and clique changing policies to address the concerns of said voters? Just how is the Conservative Party going to strangle the life out of UKIP?
The Conservatives' best strategy in relation to UKIP is largely to ignore it (it depends on the oxygen of publicity), and in constituencies where it remains relevant, to squeeze like an accordion, first where necessary the anti-UKIP vote to ensure that UKIP is defeated and then the UKIP vote to ensure that Labour is defeated.
In due course, UKIP will suffer the Magnificent Ambersons fate:
"Something had happened. A thing which, years ago, had been the eagerest hope of many, many good citizens of the town, and now it had come at last; George Amberson Mainafer had got his comeuppance. He got it three times filled, and running over. But those who had so longed for it were not there to see it, and they never knew it. Those who were still living had forgotten all about it and all about him."
When it comes to UKIP, although your criticisms of their electoral strategy and targeting have a lot of merit, it's clear you don't understand them in the slighest. You get it badly wrong time after time.
Right, must stop avoiding work now and get back to it. I've got a weekend I want to enjoy guilt-free.
It would have been very easy for UKIP supporters in Newark to get trapped in a bubble of confirmation bias. Hanging around the centre of town, as I did for a couple of days, it was tricky finding anyone who wasn't going to vote UKIP. But then, what type of people are in town during the middle of the day? People who don't have jobs. Retired people. Market traders. In other words, exactly the sort of people who vote UKIP.
It would have been very natural to assume that the polls and the betting were all wrong. It was one of those situations when you were almost better off not being "on the ground".
A very wise post by the very wise Shadsy.
In fact, I'm not sure that it is not a general rule of political betting that you are better off observing from afar. I've made some of my best money on betting on Holyrood, the US, and Irish elections. When you're not personally involved at all, it's easy to remain detached and just look at the evidence. And I think you're better off not watching videos of the politicians concerned - you can be put off by your own reaction, which is not at all necessarily that of the relevant target voters.
That's a good question - this is a bit weasely, but:
(1) Start showing appreciation to its members and supporters and treating them with absolute respect - any advisor, or elected representative, saying anything different to be shown the door instantly (2) That means not only what they say but spending genuine time with them and listening to them (3) Listening means hearing and responding to what they are saying, rearticulating and playing back their messages, until its clear to the members and supporters that the leadership have understood (4) Following through on that, actually *doing something about it* based on it what's been said (5) Publicly making the case for Conservatism from first principles and leading the argument (not apologising for Conservative things they do, like deficit reduction, 40% tax etc.) (6) When its clear that the members and leaders are at odds, express geniune understanding of their position, take the time to try and lead them and explain why its necessary and then make the absolute best effort to mitigate any impact
Some examples where Cameron screwed up on this, include; Lisbon, UKIP, Gay marriage, and (if not sanctioned) the blind-eye turned to modernists who went around insulting the party faithful. Cameron has lost my confidence because he doesn't really believe anything, and changes his angle so often, I just don't trust him.
Like Thatcher, he should spend more time talking to backbenchers and visiting Conservative associations to make speeches, meet ordinary members, thank them and make his case. He should lay out his repatriation objectives for EU 2017 so people know he's sincere. He should include immigration within that. He should spell out the consequences if he doesn't get it - including neutrality from him, or recommending a NO vote if it fails.
He should balance up the gay marriage (done now, but was a mistake for him to do it) message with an extremely strong pro-family message. He should have raised IHT threshold and reform stamp duty as a gesture of goodwill. Pushed for, argued and held a free-vote on hunting even if it failed... Spelt out his aspirations for a future recovery of the defence budget and the integrity of the armed forces.
He should do all of this through speeches from 1st principles to lead the public and endeavour to *win the intellectual argument*
In other words, he should do what is necessary to convince his natural supporters he is one of them (a natural Conservative) in Dowing Street delivering for them. Not treat them as a convenient mule on which he can piggyback the ambitions of his own career.
Many thanks - that's not weasily at all. I'm off for a wee while but (as a Cameroon loyalist) I will try and respond later.
It does work both ways! It's more about me being badged as a "Cameroon" and then all sorts of traits being attributed to that, from what were formally my fellow Conservatives.
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
The first 3, fair comment. But is "Kipper" really derogatory? To me it seems more like LibDem or Tory?
Wikipedia says the derivation of Tory was "originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label"
It's more about me being badged as a "Kipper" and then all sorts of traits being attributed to that, from what were formally my fellow Conservatives.
I understand. I've never used the phrase "Cameroon" to any Conservative poster on here (well, not to my knowledge, anyway) and I direct my fire towards Cameron's inner circle, and the cabal of advisors and policy wonks around him that have pushed this since 2006.
I'm happy to simply debate with the rest, rather than name call.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
"I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse"
The BBC version of reality isn't true: grooming gangs, people leaving the cities because of a gang culture that doesn't officially exist, massive expansion of the shadow economy with unskilled manual and service work shifted to 12+ to a house imports etc. None of this is going away.
Hiding the true reality and attacking people who say different doesn't change the underlying reality it only slows down the rate of people realizing it. So the Tories are doomed by open borders - as clearly flagged by the metro elections - it's just a question of whether the TV media can slow down a party like Ukip replacing them before it no longer matters.
Today that is looking dicey but Con are doomed either way.
That's a good question - this is a bit weasely, but:
(1) Start showing appreciation to its members and supporters and treating them with absolute respect - any advisor, or elected representative, saying anything different to be shown the door instantly (2) That means not only what they say but spending genuine time with them and listening to them (3) Listening means hearing and responding to what they are saying, rearticulating and playing back their messages, until its clear to the members and supporters that the leadership have understood (4) Following through on that, actually *doing something about it* based on it what's been said (5) Publicly making the case for Conservatism from first principles and leading the argument (not apologising for Conservative things they do, like deficit reduction, 40% tax etc.) (6) When its clear that the members and leaders are at odds, express geniune understanding of their position, take the time to try and lead them and explain why its necessary and then make the absolute best effort to mitigate any impact
Some examples where Cameron screwed up on this, include; Lisbon, UKIP, Gay marriage, and (if not sanctioned) the blind-eye turned to modernists who went around insulting the party faithful. Cameron has lost my confidence because he doesn't really believe anything, and changes his angle so often, I just don't trust him.
Like Thatcher, he should spend more time talking to backbenchers and visiting Conservative associations to make speeches, meet ordinary members, thank them and make his case. He should lay out his repatriation objectives for EU 2017 so people know he's sincere. He should include immigration within that. He should spell out the consequences if he doesn't get it - including neutrality from him, or recommending a NO vote if it fails.
In other words, he should do what is necessary to convince his natural supporters he is one of them (a natural Conservative) in Dowing Street delivering for them. Not treat them as a convenient mule on which he can piggyback the ambitions of his own career.
Cameron's mistake on Lisbon was not to qualify his promise by saying "if elected, and if not ratified". He could not foretell the future that Brown would get frit about an earlier election. If you read Hague's speech at conference at the same time the promise is properly qualified and was Tory policy. I can't understand why people who appear to be knowledgeable about politics keep repeating the same old canard unless they are just looking for an excuse to criticise Cameron. Lisbon is a symbol to the disaffected but a false symbol. It would not be prudent for him to lay out now his objectives for repatriation of powers. He will need to find allies in the EU to support him if his goals are to be realistic.
Peter Curran @moridura 9 mins IpsosMORI: Satisfaction ratings for Alistair Darling in freefall: +5% in September, +3% in December, -3% in February and -16% in June.
This only proves he is doing a good job. Previously, the SNP types didn't take him seriously. Now, they know he is a serious threat to their vision of Scotland. Hence, the disliking.
Thatcher was never liked. Nothing much to like about her anyway. She won elections.
Cameron's mistake on Lisbon was not to qualify his promise by saying "if elected, and if not ratified". He could not foretell the future that Brown would get frit about an earlier election. If you read Hague's speech at conference at the same time the promise is properly qualified and was Tory policy. I can't understand why people who appear to be knowledgeable about politics keep repeating the same old canard unless they are just looking for an excuse to criticise Cameron. Lisbon is a symbol to the disaffected but a false symbol. It would not be prudent for him to lay out now his objectives for repatriation of powers. He will need to find allies in the EU to support him if his goals are to be realistic.
Lisbon was them saying "we will not let it rest there" when they had every intention of letting it rest there. They had to lie to keep their voters onside and were caught out by events.
"UKIP is the best thing to have happened to the Conservative Party since 1992." Discuss
Possibly.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
They are also quite electorally ruthless at times. There is a reason that the demise of the Conservative Party has been predicted many times but never occurred. I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse not in one grand swoop but by slowly and relentlessly choking off the avenues of advance and strangling the electoral life out of it.
"I think even now with UKIP enjoying a modest carnival it is far more likely that the Tories will destroy UKIP than the reverse"
The BBC version of reality isn't true: grooming gangs, people leaving the cities because of a gang culture that doesn't officially exist, massive expansion of the shadow economy with unskilled manual and service work shifted to 12+ to a house imports etc. None of this is going away.
Hiding the true reality and attacking people who say different doesn't change the underlying reality it only slows down the rate of people realizing it. So the Tories are doomed by open borders - as clearly flagged by the metro elections - it's just a question of whether the TV media can slow down a party like Ukip replacing them before it no longer matters.
Today that is looking dicey but Con are doomed either way.
Tell us about the UKIP fellah with bunkhouses for the cheap immigrant labour he's importing.
It does work both ways! It's more about me being badged as a "Cameroon" and then all sorts of traits being attributed to that, from what were formally my fellow Conservatives.
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
The first 3, fair comment. But is "Kipper" really derogatory? To me it seems more like LibDem or Tory?
Wikipedia says the derivation of Tory was "originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label"
It's more about me being badged as a "Kipper" and then all sorts of traits being attributed to that, from what were formally my fellow Conservatives.
Golly, Mrs. Lass! Who badged you as a Camaroon? Tell me and I'll go round and tell him about it. As far as I ever pigeon-hole anyone I had you down for a proper Conservative lady. Never a Cameroon
Comments
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100275180/zulu-tactics-the-lib-dems-have-given-up-the-pretence-of-being-a-national-party/
"In truth, it would have been a big, big leap for Labour to win Newark, even against an incumbent party, so failing to do so probably doesn’t quite count as a disaster. But that doesn’t mean Newark says good things about Labour. Quite the contrary.
“We always expected to come third,” say Labour spinners. Maybe. But if that’s true, it suggests a curious lack of ambition for a party that aspires to govern next year."
"If Labour was passive in Newark, the Lib Dems were non-existent. Not a single Lib Dem MP campaigned there, and only a single peer. (Lord Newby). The cash-strapped central party gave no support to the local candidate. Finishing sixth and losing the deposit surprised no one.
Arguably, this was rational: the Lib Dems have scarce resources and have decided to concentrate them on those seats where they have a realistic chance of holding on; trying to make gains is almost entirely ruled out. Phil Cowley of Nottingham University has snappily dubbed this a Zulu strategy, Clegg’s redcoats retreating to the last line of mealie bags.
Prof Cowley persuasively says that’s “a sign of a party that is sensibly marshalling resources.”
Yes. But the fact that such marshalling is necessary risks painting an awkward picture of the Lib Dems as having to give up on any pretence of being a national party. Painful."
One of them is even called Keir......
Nev Kemp@ChSuptNevKemp·1h
Love this:89yr old veteran reported missing by care home who said he can't go to Normandy for #DDay70 remembrance. We've found him there!
The Tory party has always had a curious relationship with gays and gay rights, we're the party riddled with homosexuals, and we introduced Section 28, but Thatcher voted to decriminalise homosexuality, and her government decriminalised homosexuality in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Weird to think, a little over 30 years ago, in parts of this country it was a crime to be gay.
They also took on the AIDS epidemic from a health point of view and not a moral point of view, which saved the lives of many gay men.
Not better in many respects although it was in some but different. If I was to try and summarise what we have lost in a single phrase it would be the infantilisation of adults and the loss of a sense of duty.
I dislike the way politics has become a career path. I'm all in favour of reforming the system. But voting UKIP won't make anything better - and it will most likely make things much worse. Stay around and reform things from the inside, if it's possible.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/06/Telling-Children-Fairy-Tales-Could-Damage-Them-Says-Richard-Dawkins
Twitter
Nev Kemp @ChSuptNevKemp · 1h
Love this:89yr old veteran reported missing by care home who said he can't go to Normandy for #DDay70 remembrance. We've found him there!
UKIP will outlive the SDP, because the times are right for UKIP. Insurgent right wing parties are gaining, and established centre-right parties faltering, right across Europe. At constituency level, the Conservative and Labour parties are empty shells, compared to the early 80s.
Glad he made it. Two fingers to his care home.
The Conservative party are definitely better off with UKIP existing as a separate party.
The GOP was/is being ripped apart by the "party within a party" tea party movement. Just as Labour was ripped apart by the left in the 80s and Major's eurosceptics.
The Tories may well be the stupid party, but they are also the lucky party.
George Mudie, the Scottish-born MP for Leeds East, has told @BBCLeeds he would like to see his home nation leave the UK.
Interesting, I wonder if any other MPs will break cover?
Headline is "If it's too good to be true, then it probably is"
Honestly, the number of Kippers that believed it was true on twitter was unbelievable, even Roger Helmer tweeted it.
George Mudie, the Scottish-born MP for Leeds East, has told @BBCLeeds he would like to see his home nation leave the UK.
It would have been very natural to assume that the polls and the betting were all wrong. It was one of those situations when you were almost better off not being "on the ground".
George Mudie, Scots born Labour MP for Leeds East: If I were in Scotland I would be voting for an independent Scotland..."
If Mudie were an MP for a Scottish constituency, he'd now be in a basement getting the rubber truncheon treatment.
I agree that the UKIP posters went too far, and turned me off a little. But I'm not coming back to the Conservative party unless it changes. If I start to be badged as a clown, fool, fruitcake or Kipper, it will just push me closer to UKIP instead.
I'll have you know that I was a founder member of the SDP along with Polly and the Area Party Secretary in Dundee and Angus for a time. I even stood for them for the local council on occasion (in no hope seats of course in respect of which there was plenty of choice).
Unfortunately it was not just gays in the 80s and 90s, it was single parents, the unemployed, drug users, immigrants, pretty much every minority or vulnerable group going. It really wasn't nice and the nasty party tag for the tories was well earned. If UKIP help the tories lose that element it will have served a useful purpose.
Because I want to be one now
Clegg=Michael Caine
Cable=Stanley Baxter
Lembit=Hookie
UKIP are the hordes of Zulus...
It all fits now...
'Fruitcakes coming from the South East UK Sir, hundreds of em....'
Stand by for the moment where the Kippers stop fighting and start singing 'Big Yellow Taxi' to the remaining few..
Just catching up with the thread.
Moniker has finally proved beyond all lingering doubt that he knows Sweet Fanny Adams about political geography.
No wonder he always runs away whenever challenged to back up his aggressive opinions with hard cash.
Bromhead Clegg: Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets guardian readers at their breakfast.
It writes itself....
Colour Sergeant Farron: Because we're here, lass. Nobody else. Just us, someone's got to stick up for the EU.
I'll embed this video into the thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nUwZmg4W6c
http://www.bloggers4ukip.org.uk/2014/06/independent-poll-puts-ukip-in-lead-in.html
http://thanet.gov.uk/your-services/elections-and-voting/forthcoming-elections/european-parliamentary-election-thursday-22-may-2014/declaration-of-results-european-parliamentary-election/
Colour Sergeant Fallon: Webb... Webb, I saw you. You're re-elected.
Pte. Steven Webb: I am? Oh, thanks very much.
I would advise the PB Tories to read Anthony Wells' analysis and come back to us.
@Felix
Because it's one poll that is bouncing around the MOE. Look at the trend.
I usually discount them until we get proper accreditation (and the Loughborough students one was obvious rubbish), but it would be useful to know if there are back-up checks to common sense.
Seems a very strange thing that people on here are revelling in the downfall of a party that increased its share by almost 600% while everyone else lost votes.
All the mainstream media and probably most of the public see it as UKIP being the new opposition in another constituency
What has that got to do with Moniker's lousy interpretation of political geography???
IpsosMORI: Satisfaction ratings for Alistair Darling in freefall: +5% in September, +3% in December, -3% in February and -16% in June.
That's a good question - this is a bit weasely, but:
(1) Start showing appreciation to its members and supporters and treating them with absolute respect - any advisor, or elected representative, saying anything different to be shown the door instantly
(2) That means not only what they say but spending genuine time with them and listening to them
(3) Listening means hearing and responding to what they are saying, rearticulating and playing back their messages, until its clear to the members and supporters that the leadership have understood
(4) Following through on that, actually *doing something about it* based on it what's been said
(5) Publicly making the case for Conservatism from first principles and leading the argument (not apologising for Conservative things they do, like deficit reduction, 40% tax etc.)
(6) When its clear that the members and leaders are at odds, express geniune understanding of their position, take the time to try and lead them and explain why its necessary and then make the absolute best effort to mitigate any impact
Some examples where Cameron screwed up on this, include; Lisbon, UKIP, Gay marriage, and (if not sanctioned) the blind-eye turned to modernists who went around insulting the party faithful. Cameron has lost my confidence because he doesn't really believe anything, and changes his angle so often, I just don't trust him.
Like Thatcher, he should spend more time talking to backbenchers and visiting Conservative associations to make speeches, meet ordinary members, thank them and make his case. He should lay out his repatriation objectives for EU 2017 so people know he's sincere. He should include immigration within that. He should spell out the consequences if he doesn't get it - including neutrality from him, or recommending a NO vote if it fails.
He should balance up the gay marriage (done now, but was a mistake for him to do it) message with an extremely strong pro-family message. He should have raised IHT threshold and reform stamp duty as a gesture of goodwill. Pushed for, argued and held a free-vote on hunting even if it failed... Spelt out his aspirations for a future recovery of the defence budget and the integrity of the armed forces.
He should do all of this through speeches from 1st principles to lead the public and endeavour to *win the intellectual argument*
In other words, he should do what is necessary to convince his natural supporters he is one of them (a natural Conservative) in Dowing Street delivering for them. Not treat them as a convenient mule on which he can piggyback the ambitions of his own career.
As opposed to the Tories in London, Scotland, Wales, Northern England, the urban midlands...
In due course, UKIP will suffer the Magnificent Ambersons fate:
"Something had happened. A thing which, years ago, had been the eagerest hope of many, many good citizens of the town, and now it had come at last; George Amberson Mainafer had got his comeuppance. He got it three times filled, and running over. But those who had so longed for it were not there to see it, and they never knew it. Those who were still living had forgotten all about it and all about him."
It's weird how the europhile political class can open the borders even though the majority of people privately disagree. As long as they have a few hundred unelected people in TV news rooms censor the negative consequences and shout "racist" loud and often enough at anyone who disagrees with open borders *publicly* then democracy breaks down.
Anyway, can't be helped as like the political class the telly people are so insulated from the consequences of their actions they can feel nicely morally superior with no payback.
The rate of immigration should be lower than the rate of integration. The guardianista telly people can't change that reality all they're doing is hiding it long enough to ensure the maximum amount of damage is done.
The centre-left will not vote for them unless they change so much that they are no longer recognisably Conservative in the economic sense. Just the social sense isn't good enough, and the left won't trust them on that either. Meanwhile they will definitely lose their right flank to UKIP.
It's doomed to failure.
There's quite a history of that kind of thing I believe.
Unlike Labour in Newark.
It's more about me being badged as a "Cameroon" and then all sorts of traits being attributed to that, from what were formally my fellow Conservatives.
Right, must stop avoiding work now and get back to it. I've got a weekend I want to enjoy guilt-free.
In fact, I'm not sure that it is not a general rule of political betting that you are better off observing from afar. I've made some of my best money on betting on Holyrood, the US, and Irish elections. When you're not personally involved at all, it's easy to remain detached and just look at the evidence. And I think you're better off not watching videos of the politicians concerned - you can be put off by your own reaction, which is not at all necessarily that of the relevant target voters.
Many thanks - that's not weasily at all. I'm off for a wee while but (as a Cameroon loyalist) I will try and respond later.
I'm happy to simply debate with the rest, rather than name call.
The BBC version of reality isn't true: grooming gangs, people leaving the cities because of a gang culture that doesn't officially exist, massive expansion of the shadow economy with unskilled manual and service work shifted to 12+ to a house imports etc. None of this is going away.
Hiding the true reality and attacking people who say different doesn't change the underlying reality it only slows down the rate of people realizing it. So the Tories are doomed by open borders - as clearly flagged by the metro elections - it's just a question of whether the TV media can slow down a party like Ukip replacing them before it no longer matters.
Today that is looking dicey but Con are doomed either way.
It would not be prudent for him to lay out now his objectives for repatriation of powers. He will need to find allies in the EU to support him if his goals are to be realistic.
Thatcher was never liked. Nothing much to like about her anyway. She won elections.