politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hammond has the right coalition-building idea

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hammond has the right coalition-building idea

When David Cameron was Leader of the Opposition, he put a great deal of effort into detoxifying the Conservative brand – the analysis being that in order to gain an election-winning coalition, the Conservatives needed to pull swing centrist voters from both Labour and the Lib Dems.  In as far as it went, that was true but it was far from the whole picture.

Read the full story here

IOS

People who oppose gay marriage are bigots. And Cameron is right to tell them where to go.

IOS

Imagine if a politician said a black women couldn't marry a white women? We would rightly put them in the same camp as the BNP. Well that's where people who oppose gay marriage will end up.

In the same place as the Dixiecrats.

MikeSmithson

Phillip Hammond - my 33/1 tip for CON leader exactly a year ago. Now 8/1 at William Hills http://goo.gl/7DrpY

IOS

One final thought, the problem with people who oppose gay marriage is that they come from the uneconomical backwards sticks,

how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?

There is only one part of this country that is a success at the moment. And thats Gay loving, hard working, immigrant stuffed London. If Great Britain has any hope it will adopt a minority white position like London.

Time to throw these lazy backward benefit loving pensioners over to France and Spain.

EPG

I think one can rule out Labour as well as the Lib Dems: women and ethnic minorities do not share UKIP voters' nostalgia for 1957 and they enjoy much more influence in Labour than in other parties. But as for the rest, how many people will vote based on their opposition to social liberalism? It works in rural county councils, but that's a classic opportunity for a mid-term protest vote that a government party at a Westminster election won't be able to harness. And it works for the US Republican Party because of the evangelical Christian vote, but Christianity in Britain is at a low ebb at the moment. The equivalent groups in Britain of motivated conservatives in organised religion (Evangelicals and Muslims) are disproportionately from ethnic minorities, and therefore not inclined to side with social conservatives in elections, for obvious reasons. Pandering to white social conservatives will only send them further to Labour. Recall the Ashcroft poll that shows Afro-Caribbeans are aware of Enoch Powell to this day. Apart from the well-known ethnic exception, I do not see a change in the pattern of general election voting's being overwhelmingly determined by economic position (i.e. a mix of income and public/private sector employment), especially at a time of low economic growth. UKIP will likely take a lot of the right-wing voters from the Tories next time, though, as we saw from the heroic rise and fall of the German Pirates, there's no guarantee that UKIP will still register good poll numbers at this time next year. But this won't be due to social conservatism so much as disappointment among natural Tories with economic stagnation.

Mick_Pork

FPT:

David Cameron ally: Tory activists are mad, swivel-eyed loons

Senior Tory made remarks in response to question about MPs who voted for EU referendum amendment in Queen's speech

Downing Street is wrestling with a dilemma over how to respond after a close ally of David Cameron was alleged to have described Tory activists as "mad, swivel-eyed loons".

In remarks immediately seized on by Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, the senior Tory said that the party's MPs have to rebel against the leadership because they face pressure from hardline associations.

Farage, who knows the identity of the Tory, tweeted: "If you are a Conservative supporter who believes in Ukip ideas then your party hates you. Come and join us."

The senior Tory made the remarks – in earshot of journalists – after being asked about the decision of 116 Tory MPs to defy the prime minister and vote in favour of an amendment regretting the absence of a EU referendum in the Queen's speech.

The Conservative said: "It's fine. There's really no problem. The MPs just have to do it because the associations tell them to, and the associations are all mad, swivel-eyed loons."

Downing Street faced pressure on Friday evening because the Tory has been well known to the prime minister for many years and is due to play a significant role in the party's preparations for the general election. The Times, Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, who all reported the remarks and who know the identity of the Tory, declined to name the senior member of the prime minister's circle.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/18/david-cameron-ally-activists-loons?CMP=twt_fd

The question is, who?

Mick_Pork

IOS said:

People who oppose gay marriage are bigots. And Cameron is right to tell them where to go.

Perhaps he and the chumocracy should choose their words more wisely in doing so?

Tony Gallagher ‏@gallaghereditor

The startling @jameskirkup splash comes from v senior figure with strong social connections to Cameron. 'Loons' blamed for EU/gay hard line

IOS

Mick

Shapps. And it's Crosby with his hand on the gun.

There is a power struggle going on as to who runs the Tory message, is it:

Shapps
Crosby
Cameron
Osborne


The fact that they can't decide has given the hopelessly mixed messages over Europe. Crosby has decided to act. And he's taking out Shapps.

john_zims

@IOS

'how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?'

Didn't have you down as a fan of the city,thought all those bankers,brokers and investors that contribute so much tax were Labour's scapegoats.

IOS

That's where I work.

London is full of people that want to get on. Most of them are immigrants. London is an economic success at the moment when the rest of the country isn't. If the UK was bothered about trying to compete with China and the far east it would become more like London.

And price out its lazy white folk for hard working European immigrants.

IOS

UKIP = Lazy, economic failures who can't compete in a globalised market and crucially want their white skin to protect them as it did when Britain was an imperialist power

john_zims

@IOS

'London is full of people that want to get on.'

Yup,that been the case for the past 25 years since the big bang with London becoming the global financial centre, but maybe your too young to know that?

john_zims

'And price out its lazy white folk for hard working European immigrants.'

So you also support the benefit cuts for all those lazy scroungers?

Ninoinoz

IOS said:

One final thought, the problem with people who oppose gay marriage is that they come from the uneconomical backwards sticks,

how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?

There is only one part of this country that is a success at the moment. And thats Gay loving, hard working, immigrant stuffed London. If Great Britain has any hope it will adopt a minority white position like London.

Time to throw these lazy backward benefit loving pensioners over to France and Spain.

Boy, are you a stupid bigot!

London is NOT a White minority city.

Religious observance is higher in London than in the rest of England.

Those lazy pensioners have worked hard all their lives.

London relies, in part, on being a service centre (government, law, entertainment, education, etc.) for the rest of the country that you have such contempt for.

As for gay-loving, been to Tower Hamlets recently?

MikeSmithson

By 48% to 41% in latest YouGov polling on the issue CON voters support same sex marriage.

john_zims

IOS is a Labour supporter whose a fan of the city of London and supports benefits cuts and in the wrong party ?

Pulpstar

MikeSmithson said:

Phillip Hammond - my 33/1 tip for CON leader exactly a year ago. Now 8/1 at William Hills http://goo.gl/7DrpY

I got 22-1 on Betfair just a few hours back. He is now 8.2/20 there.

MikeSmithson

Pulpstar said:

MikeSmithson said:

Phillip Hammond - my 33/1 tip for CON leader exactly a year ago. Now 8/1 at William Hills http://goo.gl/7DrpY

I got 22-1 on Betfair just a few hours back. He is now 8.2/20 there.

Well done - I wish I had seen that

Pulpstar

Phillip Hammond
24 £1.25 £28.75
Ref: xx Matched: 22:13 17-May-13
Phillip Hammond
23 £5.75 £126.50

dugarbandier

IOS said:

That's where I work.

London is full of people that want to get on. Most of them are immigrants. London is an economic success at the moment when the rest of the country isn't. If the UK was bothered about trying to compete with China and the far east it would become more like London.

And price out its lazy white folk for hard working European immigrants.

where are you going to price the lazy white folk out to? I guess they'll have to go somewhere.

Issues of competence aside though, IOS, that sounds very much like a Cameroonian (or Borisian) worldview? (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you).

Is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" completely a thing of the past?

Socrates

Presumably IOS believes Barack Obama was a bigot in 2008.

old_labour

I read Kipper posters in the Mail and Telegraph speaking of taking back out country .
For me and many others, that suggests we have no part in this country..
I know Richard of this parish is a reasonable and civilized man, but the same cannot be said of many of his fellow travellers.

Pulpstar

Just watched UKIP vs the idiots, as have alot of ppl on the BBC website. More boost for UKIP methinks there. Though I think they will be an irrelevance in Scotland at least for the next GE.

Sean_F

IOS, you should look at your own comments about White people before accusing others of bigotry.

WRT gay marriage, most people who voted Conservative in 2010 are opposed, and this is overwhelmingly true of switchers to UkIP, which bears out David's point.

peter_from_putney

In a three horse field (along with Gove and Hague), Hammond looks the most likely imo to become the next leader of the Tory Party as well as being for my money the best bet at 10/1 with Ladbrokes, Paddy Power, etc.

InMyHumOp

Gay Marriage no reason why not. If straight couples are allowed to why shouldnt gay couples. I don't honestly think this issue will sway votes too much either way and frankly Cameron is probably better off in the long run associating the party with the majority view of younger people (I know generalisation but I think its true, I am also aware older people are more likely to vote) than older as its a view that will probably largely literally die out in the not too distant future. Hammond is right about one thing too much time has been wasted on this mainly symbolic law.

Kevin_R_Lohse

The older people are, the more they have to lose and the more socially conservative they become. Thus, the percentage of social conservatives are always being topped up. As people are living longer, there may even be a slight increase in the percentage of socially conservative voters. If data was available, that would be an interesting theory to check. The hundreds of thousands of small businessmen and sole traders tend towards social conservatism as well. It was those little people who Maggie won from the socialists, and why Blair lurched to the Right to regain power.

Cameron has morphed the party leadership into a "me too" offering largely the same left-of-centre policies as the other 2 parliamentary parties. All 3 parties have isolated and ignored the little people in a manner reminiscent of the aristocracy of pre-revolutionary France and are going to pay the price over the coming years. No wonder the Tory back-benches and the voluntary party are in open revolt and that UKIP are doing so well. The emergence of UKIP has given social conservatives who would never vote Tory a centre-right party they can support. There is a fair chance that the 2 centre-right parties will come to dominate UK politics. The 2014 euro-elections will give UKIP an enormous boost in public recognition and provide them with a strong platform for 2015.

It is not only Cameron's metropolitan elitist neo-Heathites who have to worry. Milliband's plan of saying nothing of substance and falling into No. 10 by default is being seriously compromised.

The attraction of both Maggie and Blair was that they offered a vision of something different. The difference between Maggie and Blair was that Maggie delivered, Blair most definitely did not.

Andypet

Gay marriage debate wasting too much time? After two days on the issue this week, the House isn't sitting again until 3rd June. It doesn't exactly sound as if other issues are being crowded out.

Andypet

It may be that older people are more socially conservative. But they can only conserve what was the norm in they're youth and middle age. Thus although they may be topped up as a group, each new cohort will have a different set of social values that they wish to retain.

SouthamObserver

The Rotherham vote is a fascinating one. I suspect it has very little to do with gay marriage and much more to do with being taken for granted over issues such as immigration. Labour is a lazy party that has allowed itself to become too far removed from many of its voters' lives. A kicking in a vote such as this will do it a power of good. One thing you can be pretty certain of is that people in Rotherham were not voting for savage cuts in public spending to finance major reductions in the amount of tax being paid by the wealthiest.

edmundintokyo

Socrates said:

Presumably IOS believes Barack Obama was a bigot in 2008.

More plausibly he was a shameless, unprincipled political opportunist in 2008. Likewise most of the other Democrats whose positions on this suddenly and mysteriously "evolved" over the course of a couple of weeks.

InMyHumOp

Kevin_R_Lohse said:

The older people are, the more they have to lose and the more socially conservative they become. Thus, the percentage of social conservatives are always being topped up. As people are living longer, there may even be a slight increase in the percentage of socially conservative voters. If data was available, that would be an interesting theory to check. The hundreds of thousands of small businessmen and sole traders tend towards social conservatism as well. It was those little people who Maggie won from the socialists, and why Blair lurched to the Right to regain power.

Cameron has morphed the party leadership into a "me too" offering largely the same left-of-centre policies as the other 2 parliamentary parties. All 3 parties have isolated and ignored the little people in a manner reminiscent of the aristocracy of pre-revolutionary France and are going to pay the price over the coming years. No wonder the Tory back-benches and the voluntary party are in open revolt and that UKIP are doing so well. The emergence of UKIP has given social conservatives who would never vote Tory a centre-right party they can support. There is a fair chance that the 2 centre-right parties will come to dominate UK politics. The 2014 euro-elections will give UKIP an enormous boost in public recognition and provide them with a strong platform for 2015.

It is not only Cameron's metropolitan elitist neo-Heathites who have to worry. Milliband's plan of saying nothing of substance and falling into No. 10 by default is being seriously compromised.

The attraction of both Maggie and Blair was that they offered a vision of something different. The difference between Maggie and Blair was that Maggie delivered, Blair most definitely did not.

Social Conservatives clearly ironically change over time. therefore in 20 years nobody will frankly understand why there was any fuss over gay marriage anyhow.

UKIPs boost in the polls is about Europe and the EU being in a complete mess and the concern the UK is tied to that millstone and will have to help bail it out (probably covertly). If that mess goes away then the chances are UKIPs support will drift away, however that mess will remain all the while the south european countries stay in the Eurozone and even if they are forced out, the Eurozone currency will then become less competitive.

So the reality is anti EU feeling (and all the issues relating to the EU such as European immigration and its effect on housing costs and wage levels) rightly flourishes right now and UKIP is benefitting. Don't however confuse that with support for social Conservatism.

DecrepitJohnL

Kevin_R_Lohse said:

It is not only Cameron's metropolitan elitist neo-Heathites who have to worry. Milliband's plan of saying nothing of substance and falling into No. 10 by default is being seriously compromised.

Agreed. Especially as the economic case -- that austerity makes things worse, and we need to stimulate growth -- is counter-intuitive, so needs to be made over a long period.

SquareRoot

:@ Southam Observer

You are almost spot on though it doesn't help having the main opposition having no policies other than to oppose, coupled with a less than inspiring front bench.. The reality is that Labour have nothing and will have nothing to offer that is hugely different to what the Coalition are doing, and Labour are still largely blamed for what is happening as a result of Gordon's bust.
"The austerity for tax cuts for the rich" line could have been written by tim. You know that is spin and its not quite like that at all.

JackW

I've decided against marrying a gay man as Mrs Jack W advises me that I'm very happily married to her but it's nice to think the opportunity is there should her indoors throw me over for a better and hunkier shoe providing male model than moi .... or of course a female of the lesbian variety ....

Oh such choice - surely Conservatives normally support the concept ?!?

DecrepitJohnL

Kevin_R_Lohse said:

The attraction of both Maggie and Blair was that they offered a vision of something different. The difference between Maggie and Blair was that Maggie delivered, Blair most definitely did not.

Blair delivered all right. Whether you, or any other individual voter, approve of what was delivered is another question, but Labour would doubtless count amongst its achievements an independent Bank of England, reform of the justice system, new schools and hospitals, peace in Northern Ireland, devolution for Wales and Scotland, a national minimum wage, economic growth and so on.

Against that, its critics, including many from the left, would charge increased authoritarianism and a string of foreign wars. On the economy, leaving aside charges from politically motivated, economically illiterate halfwits that Gordon Brown caused the global financial meltdown, PFI stored up massive debts for the future, and domestic credit boomed out of control on the back of house price inflation.

But I do not think it can be argued that Blair did nothing and that the country in 2010, or 2005, looked the same as in 1997.

david_herdson

InMyHumOp said:

Kevin_R_Lohse said:

The older people are, the more they have to lose and the more socially conservative they become. Thus, the percentage of social conservatives are always being topped up. As people are living longer, there may even be a slight increase in the percentage of socially conservative voters. If data was available, that would be an interesting theory to check. The hundreds of thousands of small businessmen and sole traders tend towards social conservatism as well. It was those little people who Maggie won from the socialists, and why Blair lurched to the Right to regain power.

Cameron has morphed the party leadership into a "me too" offering largely the same left-of-centre policies as the other 2 parliamentary parties. All 3 parties have isolated and ignored the little people in a manner reminiscent of the aristocracy of pre-revolutionary France and are going to pay the price over the coming years. No wonder the Tory back-benches and the voluntary party are in open revolt and that UKIP are doing so well. The emergence of UKIP has given social conservatives who would never vote Tory a centre-right party they can support. There is a fair chance that the 2 centre-right parties will come to dominate UK politics. The 2014 euro-elections will give UKIP an enormous boost in public recognition and provide them with a strong platform for 2015.

It is not only Cameron's metropolitan elitist neo-Heathites who have to worry. Milliband's plan of saying nothing of substance and falling into No. 10 by default is being seriously compromised.

The attraction of both Maggie and Blair was that they offered a vision of something different. The difference between Maggie and Blair was that Maggie delivered, Blair most definitely did not.

Social Conservatives clearly ironically change over time. therefore in 20 years nobody will frankly understand why there was any fuss over gay marriage anyhow.

UKIPs boost in the polls is about Europe and the EU being in a complete mess and the concern the UK is tied to that millstone and will have to help bail it out (probably covertly). If that mess goes away then the chances are UKIPs support will drift away, however that mess will remain all the while the south european countries stay in the Eurozone and even if they are forced out, the Eurozone currency will then become less competitive.

So the reality is anti EU feeling (and all the issues relating to the EU such as European immigration and its effect on housing costs and wage levels) rightly flourishes right now and UKIP is benefitting. Don't however confuse that with support for social Conservatism.

Anti-EU feeling certainly exists but those who mention the EU as one of the most important issues is considerably smaller than UKIPs share. Their natural core vote based on the unprompted issues question is probably about 2-3%. Part of the rest is undoubtedly a none-of-the-above effect but if you speak to UKIP switchers, socially conservative issues is absolutely an issue.

I get the impression that some on the left want to bury their head in the sand on this one and argue that if only the other parties were more like them, everything would be ok. In fact, it's because all the parties are so much like them that UKIP are doing so well.

Millsy

Good piece. It's only natural that Ukip rise in places where Conservatives and Labour are leaving behind. And gay marriage is one of those things that punctures the old 2 or 3 party system. On other things like Europe, immigration and the economy there are small differences that can hopefully be bridged at the time of an election, but there's not much the old 3 can do about gay marriage deserters. If people feel strongly that marriage should be restricted to a man and woman they can vote Ukip. What's wrong with that?

MrJones

IOS said:

One final thought, the problem with people who oppose gay marriage is that they come from the uneconomical backwards sticks,

how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?

There is only one part of this country that is a success at the moment. And thats Gay loving, hard working, immigrant stuffed London. If Great Britain has any hope it will adopt a minority white position like London.

Time to throw these lazy backward benefit loving pensioners over to France and Spain.

New Labour ftw.

SouthamObserver

SquareRoot said:

:@ Southam Observer

You are almost spot on though it doesn't help having the main opposition having no policies other than to oppose, coupled with a less than inspiring front bench.. The reality is that Labour have nothing and will have nothing to offer that is hugely different to what the Coalition are doing, and Labour are still largely blamed for what is happening as a result of Gordon's bust.
"The austerity for tax cuts for the rich" line could have been written by tim. You know that is spin and its not quite like that at all.

What else is a flat tax rate but a massive tax cut for the wealthiest?

SouthamObserver

On another note, the Cameroon loon comments probably tell us a lot about the PM's EU referendum plans - a bone to keep the nutters quiet for a while. Should the Tories win in 2015 expect full-scale carnage to erupt soon after as Dave reveals his red lines.

SquareRoot

@ SO

Aren't the wealthiest paying more in tax than ever before ? and we don't have a flat tax rate in this country

Sean_F

IOS should visit an African Pentecostalist church in Harlesden, and see if these immigrants agree with him.

Southam, some Labour heartlands are less safe than they appear. If there's a non-Labour vote of 40-45%, which collapses in favour of UKIP, it doesn't take many switchers to lose the seat.

MikeK

SouthamObserver said:

The Rotherham vote is a fascinating one. I suspect it has very little to do with gay marriage and much more to do with being taken for granted over issues such as immigration. Labour is a lazy party that has allowed itself to become too far removed from many of its voters' lives. A kicking in a vote such as this will do it a power of good. One thing you can be pretty certain of is that people in Rotherham were not voting for savage cuts in public spending to finance major reductions in the amount of tax being paid by the wealthiest.

Good Morning. Wasn't rotherham the place that attempted to ban a UKIP couple from fostering children and had in fact fostered children forcibly removed from them. I thought so. Busy-body Labour councillors won't be so smug and self righteous any more.

The fact is, red tape, predatory laws, and the spy/gestapo tactics of all the main parties is the force that is driving so many people to UKIP.

Charles

IOS said:

One final thought, the problem with people who oppose gay marriage is that they come from the uneconomical backwards sticks,

how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?

There is only one part of this country that is a success at the moment. And thats Gay loving, hard working, immigrant stuffed London. If Great Britain has any hope it will adopt a minority white position like London.

Time to throw these lazy backward benefit loving pensioners over to France and Spain.

Two quick points, but I suspect not worth debating with you when you are in this frame of mind. (I do hope you write Labour's manifesto though).

1. No one is worthless. Not socially, not economically. Everyone has value - it may be hard to spot sometimes, but there is potential in everyone. To dismiss any of your fellow citizens as only fit for the scrapheap displays a level of arrogance and contempt that is disgraceful

2. There are very few cities that have flourished without a hinterland, and usually only because of very specific strategic reasons: Hong Kong as the gateway to China, or Singapore because of the Straits of Malacca. London would wither without its hinterland.

MrJones

"Social Conservatives clearly ironically change over time"

Because the goal-posts keep moving.

The driving force behind post-1968 social liberalism is the craving some people have to feel morally superior to the majority of the population. So it won't stop with gay marriage or anything else - as soon as the majority have been bullied or schooled into accepting the latest dividing line they'll invent a new one to feel morally superior over so the culture war will continue just over different terrain. I'd guess it will be one of lowering the age of consent, polygamy, incest, normalizing paedophilia etc. It doesn't really matter to them what it is as long as the majority are against it they'll pick one to be in favour of.

MrJones

Sean_F said:

IOS should visit an African Pentecostalist church in Harlesden, and see if these immigrants agree with him.

Southam, some Labour heartlands are less safe than they appear. If there's a non-Labour vote of 40-45%, which collapses in favour of UKIP, it doesn't take many switchers to lose the seat.

Yes. They're only safe because there's no effective opposition rather than being safe despite effective opposition.

SouthamObserver

SquareRoot said:

@ SO

Aren't the wealthiest paying more in tax than ever before ? and we don't have a flat tax rate in this country

These are arguments Labour should be forcing UKIP to make. At the moment they are getting a free ride. Labour should be getting across the fact that economically UKIP is even more to the right than the Tories. If it turns out that some former Labour voters still want to back it after that argument is made because of its views on immigration, the EU and gay marriage then so be it.

InMyHumOp

david_herdson said:

InMyHumOp said:

Kevin_R_Lohse said:

The older people are, the more they have to lose and the more socially conservative they become. Thus, the percentage of social conservatives are always being topped up. As people are living longer, there may even be a slight increase in the percentage of socially conservative voters. If data was available, that would be an interesting theory to check. The hundreds of thousands of small businessmen and sole traders tend towards social conservatism as well. It was those little people who Maggie won from the socialists, and why Blair lurched to the Right to regain power.

Cameron has morphed the party leadership into a "me too" offering largely the same left-of-centre policies as the other 2 parliamentary parties. All 3 parties have isolated and ignored the little people in a manner reminiscent of the aristocracy of pre-revolutionary France and are going to pay the price over the coming years. No wonder the Tory back-benches and the voluntary party are in open revolt and that UKIP are doing so well. The emergence of UKIP has given social conservatives who would never vote Tory a centre-right party they can support. There is a fair chance that the 2 centre-right parties will come to dominate UK politics. The 2014 euro-elections will give UKIP an enormous boost in public recognition and provide them with a strong platform for 2015.

It is not only Cameron's metropolitan elitist neo-Heathites who have to worry. Milliband's plan of saying nothing of substance and falling into No. 10 by default is being seriously compromised.

The attraction of both Maggie and Blair was that they offered a vision of something different. The difference between Maggie and Blair was that Maggie delivered, Blair most definitely did not.

Social Conservatives clearly ironically change over time. therefore in 20 years nobody will frankly understand why there was any fuss over gay marriage anyhow.

UKIPs boost in the polls is about Europe and the EU being in a complete mess and the concern the UK is tied to that millstone and will have to help bail it out (probably covertly). If that mess goes away then the chances are UKIPs support will drift away, however that mess will remain all the while the south european countries stay in the Eurozone and even if they are forced out, the Eurozone currency will then become less competitive.

So the reality is anti EU feeling (and all the issues relating to the EU such as European immigration and its effect on housing costs and wage levels) rightly flourishes right now and UKIP is benefitting. Don't however confuse that with support for social Conservatism.

Anti-EU feeling certainly exists but those who mention the EU as one of the most important issues is considerably smaller than UKIPs share. Their natural core vote based on the unprompted issues question is probably about 2-3%. Part of the rest is undoubtedly a none-of-the-above effect but if you speak to UKIP switchers, socially conservative issues is absolutely an issue.

I get the impression that some on the left want to bury their head in the sand on this one and argue that if only the other parties were more like them, everything would be ok. In fact, it's because all the parties are so much like them that UKIP are doing so well.

I simply don't buy that enough people pro- or anti- gay marriage will change votes based on it.

I think your comment about those that mention the EU in polling brings up an interesting issue. I believe people know that the EU affects almost everything to a certain extent in their daily lives so when for example they answer immigration or growth or housing to a pollster as an issue for them what they are saying is this is an issue and I believe the main inputs to this issue are 50% EU 50% government (or 80% Labour Government 20% bankers or whatever depending on issue). I think if I am right and you aggregate how much people believe issues are affected by particular institutions I think then you would get a better picture of how important the EU is actually seen as. Just a theory.

SouthamObserver

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

The Rotherham vote is a fascinating one. I suspect it has very little to do with gay marriage and much more to do with being taken for granted over issues such as immigration. Labour is a lazy party that has allowed itself to become too far removed from many of its voters' lives. A kicking in a vote such as this will do it a power of good. One thing you can be pretty certain of is that people in Rotherham were not voting for savage cuts in public spending to finance major reductions in the amount of tax being paid by the wealthiest.

Good Morning. Wasn't rotherham the place that attempted to ban a UKIP couple from fostering children and had in fact fostered children forcibly removed from them. I thought so. Busy-body Labour councillors won't be so smug and self righteous any more.

The fact is, red tape, predatory laws, and the spy/gestapo tactics of all the main parties is the force that is driving so many people to UKIP.

Yes, I'd forgotten about that. Pretty much makes my point.

malcolmg

john_zims said:

@IOS

'how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?'

Didn't have you down as a fan of the city,thought all those bankers,brokers and investors that contribute so much tax were Labour's scapegoats.

Is that different ones from the useless tw*ts that cost us hundreds of billions and beggared the country for the next 30 years whilst stuffing their pockets full of cash.

MrJones

InMyHumOp said:

david_herdson said:

InMyHumOp said:

Kevin_R_Lohse said:

The older people are, the more they have to lose and the more socially conservative they become. Thus, the percentage of social conservatives are always being topped up. As people are living longer, there may even be a slight increase in the percentage of socially conservative voters. If data was available, that would be an interesting theory to check. The hundreds of thousands of small businessmen and sole traders tend towards social conservatism as well. It was those little people who Maggie won from the socialists, and why Blair lurched to the Right to regain power.

Cameron has morphed the party leadership into a "me too" offering largely the same left-of-centre policies as the other 2 parliamentary parties. All 3 parties have isolated and ignored the little people in a manner reminiscent of the aristocracy of pre-revolutionary France and are going to pay the price over the coming years. No wonder the Tory back-benches and the voluntary party are in open revolt and that UKIP are doing so well. The emergence of UKIP has given social conservatives who would never vote Tory a centre-right party they can support. There is a fair chance that the 2 centre-right parties will come to dominate UK politics. The 2014 euro-elections will give UKIP an enormous boost in public recognition and provide them with a strong platform for 2015.

It is not only Cameron's metropolitan elitist neo-Heathites who have to worry. Milliband's plan of saying nothing of substance and falling into No. 10 by default is being seriously compromised.

The attraction of both Maggie and Blair was that they offered a vision of something different. The difference between Maggie and Blair was that Maggie delivered, Blair most definitely did not.

Social Conservatives clearly ironically change over time. therefore in 20 years nobody will frankly understand why there was any fuss over gay marriage anyhow.

UKIPs boost in the polls is about Europe and the EU being in a complete mess and the concern the UK is tied to that millstone and will have to help bail it out (probably covertly). If that mess goes away then the chances are UKIPs support will drift away, however that mess will remain all the while the south european countries stay in the Eurozone and even if they are forced out, the Eurozone currency will then become less competitive.

So the reality is anti EU feeling (and all the issues relating to the EU such as European immigration and its effect on housing costs and wage levels) rightly flourishes right now and UKIP is benefitting. Don't however confuse that with support for social Conservatism.

Anti-EU feeling certainly exists but those who mention the EU as one of the most important issues is considerably smaller than UKIPs share. Their natural core vote based on the unprompted issues question is probably about 2-3%. Part of the rest is undoubtedly a none-of-the-above effect but if you speak to UKIP switchers, socially conservative issues is absolutely an issue.

I get the impression that some on the left want to bury their head in the sand on this one and argue that if only the other parties were more like them, everything would be ok. In fact, it's because all the parties are so much like them that UKIP are doing so well.

I simply don't buy that enough people pro- or anti- gay marriage will change votes based on it.

I think your comment about those that mention the EU in polling brings up an interesting issue. I believe people know that the EU affects almost everything to a certain extent in their daily lives so when for example they answer immigration or growth or housing to a pollster as an issue for them what they are saying is this is an issue and I believe the main inputs to this issue are 50% EU 50% government (or 80% Labour Government 20% bankers or whatever depending on issue). I think if I am right and you aggregate how much people believe issues are affected by particular institutions I think then you would get a better picture of how important the EU is actually seen as. Just a theory.

"I simply don't buy that enough people pro- or anti- gay marriage will change votes based on it. "

Think of it as a proxy for rate of change.

malcolmg

IOS said:

That's where I work.

London is full of people that want to get on. Most of them are immigrants. London is an economic success at the moment when the rest of the country isn't. If the UK was bothered about trying to compete with China and the far east it would become more like London.

And price out its lazy white folk for hard working European immigrants.

good joke

malcolmg

john_zims said:

@IOS

'London is full of people that want to get on.'

Yup,that been the case for the past 25 years since the big bang with London becoming the global financial centre, but maybe your too young to know that?

or perhaps too stupid

DavidL

Gay marriage is important to Cameron because it is symbolic. It is a symbol that the tory party get the modern world and have moved on from the homophobia and bigotry of the past.

When you go back to the 1980s homophobia of course went well beyond the Conservative party. Here is Scotland homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1980 and prosecution of gay men for soliciting in toilets etc was very actively pursued for many years thereafter. One of the partners in my first law firm was caught this way to huge public embarrassment. This was not exactly in the tory heartlands.

But the myth that it was only the tory party that was intolerent or bigoted was damaging and Cameron wanted to change it. He thinks this is an important step to being listened to in the modern world and he is probably right. That does result in social conservatives feeling alienated and undervalued leaving them open to the advances of UKIP.

It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.

MonikerDiCanio

malcolmg said:

john_zims said:

@IOS

'how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?'

Didn't have you down as a fan of the city,thought all those bankers,brokers and investors that contribute so much tax were Labour's scapegoats.

Is that different ones from the useless tw*ts that cost us hundreds of billions and beggared the country for the next 30 years whilst stuffing their pockets full of cash.

In Edinburgh , that well-known London suburb ;

" When Mr Goodwin’s star was at its zenith back in May 2007, Mr Salmond, a former RBS economist, wrote to him signing off the letter with his customary “Yours for Scotland, Alex” valediction.

The letter said: “I wanted you to know that I am watching events closely on the ABN front. It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful, and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide.

“Good luck on the bid.” "

Charles

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

john_zims said:

@IOS

'how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?'

Didn't have you down as a fan of the city,thought all those bankers,brokers and investors that contribute so much tax were Labour's scapegoats.

Is that different ones from the useless tw*ts that cost us hundreds of billions and beggared the country for the next 30 years whilst stuffing their pockets full of cash.

In Edinburgh , that well-known London suburb ;

" When Mr Goodwin’s star was at its zenith back in May 2007, Mr Salmond, a former RBS economist, wrote to him signing off the letter with his customary “Yours for Scotland, Alex” valediction.

The letter said: “I wanted you to know that I am watching events closely on the ABN front. It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful, and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide.

“Good luck on the bid.” "

To be fair to Salmond, that's just a standard bullsh1t politician's letter.

With hindsight, RBS made a lot of mistakes with the ABN deal. Given a hostile situation it was difficult to do proper diligence (although the line '2 ringbinders and a DVD' is utterly misleading as they are talking about a VDR DVD which has everything you could reasonably want in diligence) and they were badly caught out to with the quality of ABN's loan portfolio when the credit crunch came.

More fundamentally, was the error they made in leveraging up the company in order to buy ABN. Initially it went very well - and I've talked at length to ELF and Andrea who structured the transaction - with the separation going well and some of the non-core busineses being sold for very good prices (e.g. Antonveneta to Monte dei Paschi). They knew that they were taking a risk but it appeared well judged. The issues was, of course, when the world changed, RBS was not well positioned. But that's easy to say with hindsight.

Overall, though, you can't reasonably expect Salmond to have known any of this. He was just greedily trying to claim credit, but he didn't deserve it. And he doesn't deserve the criticism because it all went wrong. The fault lies with Fred, his Board, the regulators and, to a lesser extent, Andrea & ELF and with RBS's shareholders.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Betting Post

Slightly unusual tennis tip from me. Azarenka to beat Errani with a -4.5 game handicap (Betfair market) at 1.99. The Internazionali BNL d'Italia is a clay surface, and in the last two clay matches Azarenka won (in game terms) 12-3 each time. In their last match (hard court) she won 12-4.

JohnWheatley

IOS said:

People who oppose gay marriage are bigots. And Cameron is right to tell them where to go.

Even those happy with gay marriage, including myself, must defend the right of those who aren't not to have it imposed on their church. Society is increasingly a tyranny of the majority.

malcolmg

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

john_zims said:

@IOS

'how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?'

Didn't have you down as a fan of the city,thought all those bankers,brokers and investors that contribute so much tax were Labour's scapegoats.

Is that different ones from the useless tw*ts that cost us hundreds of billions and beggared the country for the next 30 years whilst stuffing their pockets full of cash.

In Edinburgh , that well-known London suburb ;

" When Mr Goodwin’s star was at its zenith back in May 2007, Mr Salmond, a former RBS economist, wrote to him signing off the letter with his customary “Yours for Scotland, Alex” valediction.

The letter said: “I wanted you to know that I am watching events closely on the ABN front. It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful, and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide.

“Good luck on the bid.” "

LOL Monica, a bunch of students showed you lily livers down south how to deal with a useless braggard like Farage. He was lucky he was not in the parliament to get a roasting from real politicians. Too used to dealing with useless pansies like Cameron and Milliband , he thought he could peddle his rubbish among real people and got turned over by a bunch of numpty students. To make it even funnier the arrested protesters were English, making an even bigger fool of him. Boy did I laugh at the incompetence and stupidity of unionists.

malcolmg

Charles said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

malcolmg said:

john_zims said:

@IOS

'how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?'

Didn't have you down as a fan of the city,thought all those bankers,brokers and investors that contribute so much tax were Labour's scapegoats.

Is that different ones from the useless tw*ts that cost us hundreds of billions and beggared the country for the next 30 years whilst stuffing their pockets full of cash.

In Edinburgh , that well-known London suburb ;

" When Mr Goodwin’s star was at its zenith back in May 2007, Mr Salmond, a former RBS economist, wrote to him signing off the letter with his customary “Yours for Scotland, Alex” valediction.

The letter said: “I wanted you to know that I am watching events closely on the ABN front. It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful, and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide.

“Good luck on the bid.” "

To be fair to Salmond, that's just a standard bullsh1t politician's letter.

With hindsight, RBS made a lot of mistakes with the ABN deal. Given a hostile situation it was difficult to do proper diligence (although the line '2 ringbinders and a DVD' is utterly misleading as they are talking about a VDR DVD which has everything you could reasonably want in diligence) and they were badly caught out to with the quality of ABN's loan portfolio when the credit crunch came.

More fundamentally, was the error they made in leveraging up the company in order to buy ABN. Initially it went very well - and I've talked at length to ELF and Andrea who structured the transaction - with the separation going well and some of the non-core busineses being sold for very good prices (e.g. Antonveneta to Monte dei Paschi). They knew that they were taking a risk but it appeared well judged. The issues was, of course, when the world changed, RBS was not well positioned. But that's easy to say with hindsight.

Overall, though, you can't reasonably expect Salmond to have known any of this. He was just greedily trying to claim credit, but he didn't deserve it. And he doesn't deserve the criticism because it all went wrong. The fault lies with Fred, his Board, the regulators and, to a lesser extent, Andrea & ELF and with RBS's shareholders.

Charles, you would be as well telling your reasoned explanation to a brick wall as the bigoted Monica who obviously had her pigtails pulled by a Scots lad many years ago and has never gotten over it.

Mick_Pork

*chortle*

Richard G Williams ‏@RGWPontcanna 1h

Farage tempts mad, swivel-eyed loons with pints of warm bitter http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/18/david-cameron-ally-activists-loons …

BarryHeaven ‏@BarryHeaven

Farage seems to believe that mad swivel-eyed loons should really be in UKIP. I agree with him:

Cameroons better get their excuses and spin in early because this one's really going to hurt.

James Manning ‏@JamesManning4 6m

The Guardian on the Tory loons story: "The senior figure is expected to be named on Saturday." http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/18/david-cameron-ally-activists-loons …

JohnWheatley

There is a "third way" - oh how I hesitate to use that phrase - other than "sound-money / go-for-growth" paradigm. That is for a government to tackle the long term deficiencies in UK productivity as out lined by Southam Observer in several posts over the years.

Demand led growth will solve nothing and just lead to an overheating economy in the south. It is also the direct result of the parties clustering around the centre desperate for popularity but unwilling to do the tough stuff - and that includes Osbourne

david_kendrick1

IOS said:

UKIP = Lazy, economic failures who can't compete in a globalised market and crucially want their white skin to protect them as it did when Britain was an imperialist power

I assume this wasn't posted ironically.

It is expressed more bluntly than most of our effete liberal establishment might do. But it is how many in UKIP feel that we are being seen. We couldn't have spelt that out ourselves, for fear of being accused of being neurotic.

The sense of smug superiority is palpable.

Maybe boosting UKIP is an oblique objective of his?

Lewis_Duckworth

Being openly gay tends to be far more dangerous in Labour constituencies than in Tory constituencies.

samonipad

SouthamObserver said:

SquareRoot said:

:@ Southam Observer

You are almost spot on though it doesn't help having the main opposition having no policies other than to oppose, coupled with a less than inspiring front bench.. The reality is that Labour have nothing and will have nothing to offer that is hugely different to what the Coalition are doing, and Labour are still largely blamed for what is happening as a result of Gordon's bust.
"The austerity for tax cuts for the rich" line could have been written by tim. You know that is spin and its not quite like that at all.

What else is a flat tax rate but a massive tax cut for the wealthiest?

I think ukip have rumbled that the 31% flat tax is not going to appeal to the "old labour" vote, and are reviewing it....

My guess would be 40% to rate 25% for everyone else w no NI

And no tax on minimum wage

Just a guess

Sean_F

Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.

Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.

SouthamObserver

samonipad said:

SouthamObserver said:

SquareRoot said:

:@ Southam Observer

You are almost spot on though it doesn't help having the main opposition having no policies other than to oppose, coupled with a less than inspiring front bench.. The reality is that Labour have nothing and will have nothing to offer that is hugely different to what the Coalition are doing, and Labour are still largely blamed for what is happening as a result of Gordon's bust.
"The austerity for tax cuts for the rich" line could have been written by tim. You know that is spin and its not quite like that at all.

What else is a flat tax rate but a massive tax cut for the wealthiest?

I think ukip have rumbled that the 31% flat tax is not going to appeal to the "old labour" vote, and are reviewing it....

My guess would be 40% to rate 25% for everyone else w no NI

And no tax on minimum wage

Just a guess

It would be interesting to know how they would balance the books on that.

Sean_F

David K, maybe he's a sock puppet for UKIP.

Fat_Steve

Is IOS around?
Last week he wrote this

"Truth is this country is full of lazy half wits that are scared of the future..... UKIP voters. The Tories should represent people that are pro gay marriage simply because WHY THE HELL NOT. And they should support the importation of hard working Romanians and support throwing out the useless lazy bigoted homophobes to some other country,"

Sadly, this source
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10065168/France-least-tolerant-country-in-Western-Europe-of-homosexuals.html

Suggests that the Romanians are quite strongly anti-gay.
So he may need to re-think.

Carola

Word on twitter (rumour klaxon) is Feldman. That's a bit boring.

Carola

'Great search on for senior Tory in Cam's social circle - but nearly every senior Tory comes from Cam social circle. That's half the problem.' oflynn

TGOHF

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomgallagher/100217573/nigel-farage-and-scotlands-left-wing-media-mafia/

Spot on blog re scottish media, farage and bbc Scotland

Mick_Pork

tim said:

Has any bookie got a market on the identity of the loons comment?
I'd make Andrew Feldman a shortish price.
If it was a very well known twit surely he'd have been named already?

He's going to be named soon enough.

Might well be Feldman. He has fop form in incompetence while being favoured by the chumocracy since he's one of Cammie's closest pals.

Cameron’s pal and another shady crony...

After a second Tory Treasurer was forced to resign in embarrassing circumstances, you would have thought David Cameron would proceed more carefully when it comes to party fundraising.

It was party chairman Andrew Feldman, Cameron’s oldest and closest friend, who approved both appointments — prompting the nickname ‘Crony chairman’.

Yet, regardless of this unfortunate track record, who was Feldman entertaining to drinks in his third-floor office at Tory Party HQ only the other day? It was none other than debonair property speculator Christopher Moran, who has been censured several times by the London Stock Exchange for a series of controversial share purchases and who holds the dubious privilege of being the first person in 300 years to be barred for life by Lloyd’s of London for ‘dishonourable conduct’.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2133623/David-Camerons-pal-Andrew-Feldman-shady-crony-Christopher-Moran.html

kle4

Just seen that BBC clip from the UKIP chap and Scottish protester, some rather funny moments.

"You said you're trying to engage [Farage], but you're yelling that he's a racist, that's not really a way to engage someone, is it?"

"Some would say not"

It was just so casually said, it was great, like 'Yeah, I know I said we were upset that he wouldn't engage us in our perfectly normal way of engaging people, a protest and verbal abuse'. UKIP are trying a bit hard to make themselves victims though, pushing just a tad too far even when they might have a point. Calm down, and stomach some angry protesting without straying into whinging.

kle4

Good piece from David Herdson. I'm not a social conservative myself, but they are a neglected opportunity for our parties.

Mick_Pork

kle4 said:

some rather funny moments.

As funny as this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io_puqxc_Ks

UpikTips ‏@UpikTips

Point out how protestors in Scotland weren't interested in engaging in debate with you by hanging up the phone during difficult interviews

TGOHF

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/17/nigel-farage-alex-salmond

Labour support for Farage "unpleasant cybernats" claims.

foxinsoxuk

Fat_Steve said:

Is IOS around?
Last week he wrote this

"Truth is this country is full of lazy half wits that are scared of the future..... UKIP voters. The Tories should represent people that are pro gay marriage simply because WHY THE HELL NOT. And they should support the importation of hard working Romanians and support throwing out the useless lazy bigoted homophobes to some other country,"

Sadly, this source
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10065168/France-least-tolerant-country-in-Western-Europe-of-homosexuals.html

Suggests that the Romanians are quite strongly anti-gay.
So he may need to re-think.

Now theres a surprise; a liberal immigration policy importing a lot of illiberal people.

With all the fuss over the Oxford and similar sex rings, I was surprised to learn that we have not yet had a British prosecution for female genital mutilation in the UK, despite it being illegal for years.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/51863/british-girls-most-risk-female-genital-mutilation

NickPalmer

DavidL said:

It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.

There's a difference between doing things people don't like and rubbing their noses in it. Cameron and his circle appear to be getting advice from IOS on how to engage in dialogue, which is probably unwise in a Prime Minister. The closest parallel is perhaps Gordon and the "just a bigoted woman", but Romney's 47% comes to mind as well.

The starting point for any politician interested in winning a broad range of votes is to respect voters, and you need to do that in private as well - once you get into the habit of writing swathes of the electorate off as idiots, the contempt will show through at some point. Obviously some people are genuinely so extreme or irrational that it's impossible to understand how they arrive at their views, but it's an exception, and social conservatism in the face of a world of accelerating change is understandable.

That doesn't mean one has to pretend to agree with it. If Cameron and his people calmly said that they understand that people are concerned, no church is being forced to do anything they don't want, but governments have to promote social stability and encouraging marriage between people who love each other is sensible, I don't think he'd be winding people up nearly so much. Any argument that finishes, "And if you disagree with me you're a bigoted loon" is not worth starting.

What I can't understand is why churches that do want to conduct gay marriages, like the Quakers, should be stopped from doing so. That surely makes no sense at all, however religious one might be. Can anyone explain that bit?

SouthamObserver

Sean_F said:

Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.

Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.

There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time.

The major lesson for all major parties that UKIP sends is don't lose focus on your core. Both Tories and Labour have. The economic side of things, though, may make it slightly easier for Labour to win its voters back. There are major differences to play on. By contrast, it's hard to see what UKIP says that a right wing, traditionalist Tory might disagree with.

sam

SouthamObserver said:

samonipad said:

SouthamObserver said:

SquareRoot said:

:@ Southam Observer

You are almost spot on though it doesn't help having the main opposition having no policies other than to oppose, coupled with a less than inspiring front bench.. The reality is that Labour have nothing and will have nothing to offer that is hugely different to what the Coalition are doing, and Labour are still largely blamed for what is happening as a result of Gordon's bust.
"The austerity for tax cuts for the rich" line could have been written by tim. You know that is spin and its not quite like that at all.

What else is a flat tax rate but a massive tax cut for the wealthiest?

I think ukip have rumbled that the 31% flat tax is not going to appeal to the "old labour" vote, and are reviewing it....

My guess would be 40% to rate 25% for everyone else w no NI

And no tax on minimum wage

Just a guess

It would be interesting to know how they would balance the books on that.

"Well we could start by not paying £50m A DAY to the European Union!" would be the standard response!

sam

IOS said:

One final thought, the problem with people who oppose gay marriage is that they come from the uneconomical backwards sticks,

how much longer must London carry these economically worthless people for?

There is only one part of this country that is a success at the moment. And thats Gay loving, hard working, immigrant stuffed London. If Great Britain has any hope it will adopt a minority white position like London.

Time to throw these lazy backward benefit loving pensioners over to France and Spain.

Ah yes that gay loving, immigrant stuffed London we know so well

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/28/east-london-muslim-vigilantes-homophobia-victim-makes-contact-with-police/

Are these the people you had in mind to throw to the sticks?

Jonathan

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.

Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.

There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time.

New Labour in other words.

david_kendrick1

Cameron still has a chance to win the next GE, if he looks more economically competent than Miliband. Although that doesn't set the bar very high, DC still looks like a big outsider in a 2-horse race.

He is making an odd choice between two of the big infra-structure opportunities: HS2 and Heathrow's 3rd runway. He seems to want to spend tomorrow's money on yesterday's technology to build a vanity project, which is very poor VFM.

He could boost London's hub airport, to make it easier to build trade with growing markets. For the dwindling number of Euro-enthusiasts, that is not within Europe.

JosiasJessop

Mick_Pork said:

kle4 said:

some rather funny moments.

As funny as this?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io_puqxc_Ks

UpikTips ‏@UpikTips

Point out how protestors in Scotland weren't interested in engaging in debate with you by hanging up the phone during difficult interviews

What a great advert that is for tolerance, understanding and debate in the fine country of Scotland.

I'm waiting for the new VisitScotland advert. (cue Neil Oliver voice): Come to the beautiful, historic country of Scotland. And if we don't like you, a bunch of shrieking students will send you back where you came from!

It'll be a winner.

sam

Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him

and the reaction on here if Farage blamed Salmond for it

Newsnight showed those Scottish mugs for what they are, great publicity for UKIP

SouthamObserver

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.

Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.

There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time.

New Labour in other words.

Not quite, but nearly. New Labour was too elitist and too metropolitan. It was very unconvincing the further away from London it got. Callaghan and Healey were far more rooted in and comfortable with the Labour movement. I doubt they would have been so nonchalant on issues such as immigration and multiculturalism.

malcolmg

TGOHF said:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomgallagher/100217573/nigel-farage-and-scotlands-left-wing-media-mafia/

Spot on blog re scottish media, farage and bbc Scotland

You obviously know as much about Scotland as Farage. This guy is a nutcase , totally anti - SNP and would not be able to tell the truth if you paid him. He is correct in that the media is left wing but it is labour controlled and only his blind hatred of the SNP could induce this idiot to print that the SNP control the media. He has obviously never read a Scottish newspaper or listened to the BBC.

Mick_Pork

On Topic.

"Politics, as nature, abhors a vacuum and it’s in that space which UKIP is now finding support and success."

If you think the lesson of the UKIP protest vote is for tories to blindly pretend the kippers are interested in anything other than stealing tory votes, while inexplicably sucking up to Farage as if he was an ally rather than an opponent, then I fear a hard lesson is in store.

Philippe Legrain ‏@plegrain

UKIP r2 Tories what Militant were 2 Labour in 80s says @matthewparris3 (£) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article3768271.ece … "cut a deal with UKIP and I’m outta here"

malcolmg

TGOHF said:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/17/nigel-farage-alex-salmond

Labour support for Farage "unpleasant cybernats" claims.

LOL, they support the Tories so they may as well hedge their bets by supporting UKIP as well.

sam

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.

Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.

There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time.

New Labour in other words.

Not quite, but nearly. New Labour was too elitist and too metropolitan. It was very unconvincing the further away from London it got. Callaghan and Healey were far more rooted in and comfortable with the Labour movement. I doubt they would have been so nonchalant on issues such as immigration and multiculturalism.

Be fair they liked Britpop

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/25/article-0-00046A8300000258-642_634x396.jpg

malcolmg

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.

Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.

There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time.

The major lesson for all major parties that UKIP sends is don't lose focus on your core. Both Tories and Labour have. The economic side of things, though, may make it slightly easier for Labour to win its voters back. There are major differences to play on. By contrast, it's hard to see what UKIP says that a right wing, traditionalist Tory might disagree with.

SO , you just quoted the SNP to a tee

MikeK

tim said:

Has any bookie got a market on the identity of the loons comment?
I'd make Andrew Feldman a shortish price.
If it was a very well known twit surely he'd have been named already?

I think you may be onto something with Lord Feldman, tim. He is a long time, close friend of Cammo.

Theuniondivvie

sam said:

Imagine the fuss if Alex Salmond were locked in a pub in the East End of London for his own safety while the EDL hurled abuse at him

You trotted that one out yesterday.
Your hypothesis would depend on Salmond being stupid enough to be involved in such tone-deaf grandstanding, being unable to engage with aggressive opposition and equates the EDL with a protest made up of Greens, socialists and Labourites (including several English people). Not really a runner, is it?

Mick_Pork

JosiasJessop said:

What a great advert that is for tolerance, understanding and debate in the fine country of Scotland.

Says the PB tory who thinks there might be terrorist attacks akin to the Boston Bombings if there is a No vote in a democratic independence referendum.

Tell me, are you being vigilant for any lib dem Yes to AV terror squads you presumably think are lurking after they got a No vote, or do you think we're safe on that score?

I expect you in particular have an interest in the tory "swivel eyed loons" story.

MikeK

Or him:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9203086/Conservatives-should-not-adopt-swivel-eyed-rhetoric-of-Ukip-to-win-2015-election-leading-minister-says.html

sam

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

It is a trade off for Cameron but one he probably has to make in the hope that people come round. The polling already indicates quite large changes in tory supporters views in these matters. Hammond is right in that the tories do not want to keep bashing these voters with issues they don't like. This week will be enough.

There's a difference between doing things people don't like and rubbing their noses in it. Cameron and his circle appear to be getting advice from IOS on how to engage in dialogue, which is probably unwise in a Prime Minister. The closest parallel is perhaps Gordon and the "just a bigoted woman", but Romney's 47% comes to mind as well.

The starting point for any politician interested in winning a broad range of votes is to respect voters, and you need to do that in private as well - once you get into the habit of writing swathes of the electorate off as idiots, the contempt will show through at some point. Obviously some people are genuinely so extreme or irrational that it's impossible to understand how they arrive at their views, but it's an exception, and social conservatism in the face of a world of accelerating change is understandable.

That doesn't mean one has to pretend to agree with it. If Cameron and his people calmly said that they understand that people are concerned, no church is being forced to do anything they don't want, but governments have to promote social stability and encouraging marriage between people who love each other is sensible, I don't think he'd be winding people up nearly so much. Any argument that finishes, "And if you disagree with me you're a bigoted loon" is not worth starting.

What I can't understand is why churches that do want to conduct gay marriages, like the Quakers, should be stopped from doing so. That surely makes no sense at all, however religious one might be. Can anyone explain that bit?

Is it true that it was Gordon Brown mishearing Gillian Duffys "where are they all FLOCKING from" that made himrespond the way he did?

Jonathan

sam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.

Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.

There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time.

New Labour in other words.

Not quite, but nearly. New Labour was too elitist and too metropolitan. It was very unconvincing the further away from London it got. Callaghan and Healey were far more rooted in and comfortable with the Labour movement. I doubt they would have been so nonchalant on issues such as immigration and multiculturalism.

Be fair they liked Britpop

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/25/article-0-00046A8300000258-642_634x396.jpg

Could be worse...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/10/des-lynam-endorses-ukip-song

SouthamObserver

sam said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

Southam, there will come a time when UKIP's policies are scrutinised in detail, but it would be water off a duck's back at the moment.

Given the nature of UKIP's support, I wouldn't be surprised if they moved a bit leftward on economic issues.

There's a lot to be said for the prospects of a socially conservative, relatively centre left economically party along the lines of what Labour under Callaghan and Healey would probably have become shorn of the Bennite left. It's a party that instinctively probably would have had quite a bit of support - patriotic, strong on law and order, pro-public services, mildly redistributionist. I may not have been that comfortable with the social conservatism, but it would have got my vote every time.

New Labour in other words.

Not quite, but nearly. New Labour was too elitist and too metropolitan. It was very unconvincing the further away from London it got. Callaghan and Healey were far more rooted in and comfortable with the Labour movement. I doubt they would have been so nonchalant on issues such as immigration and multiculturalism.

Be fair they liked Britpop

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/25/article-0-00046A8300000258-642_634x396.jpg

Labour's 1997 and 2001 landslides were the greatest missed opportunities in British political history. Blair and Brown had a chance to fundamentally alter the UK's trajectory on almost every level, but largely blew it by being timid, trying to second guess Daily Mail headlines and fighting each other over what were essentially trivialities. Oh, and Iraq, of course.