But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I stand corrected. Maybe I recalled a regional number - 25% looks low versus what one observes in any London school playground.
Nonetheless, at some point the effects of Labour's efforts to alter election demographics must bear fruit. As well as the first generation there'll soon be a second, and at that point, the opportunity to vote to limit immigration becomes a dead letter.
UKIP has one narrow window of opportunity to obtain what it wants, but not being very smart it's unclear its supporters understand this.
Mr Bond, your analysis of the demographics of the UK is interesting. If you are correct, is not the logical conclusion that it will be impossible for the UK to ever have a right of centre government after about 2020?
I'm sure that was the idea behind it. Asians break something like 90% for Labour, IIRC, so clearly the more Asians Labour can import, the better for Labour. This, of course, is something we can address without needing to leave the EU and on which we don't need UKIP's contribution.
Whether it will work or not is unclear; it's a Labour wheeze, and Labour f<cks up everything it touches, so it probably won't work. Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
There seems no reason why Muslims would be any different so in general I doubt this wheeze will work. Muslims will grow up, work hard, become prosperous and then vote against a Labour party that wants to punish and expropriate them for having shunned a client's life on benefits to do so.
Where it will work is in ensuring that nobody with UKIP's views will ever get near meaningful power, and no mainstream party will ever get near UKIP's views. 2015/2017 is, I infer, the last time anyone will offer a referendum.
UKIP are in a very weird position right now, the have drawn support from across the spectrum, but they can't be all things to all men come election time. Farrage and the rest of the party leadership will need to decide which support they want to keep, the old Conservatives or the old Labour side, there are no policies outside of immigration on which both sides agree. Economically these supporters are diametrically opposed and UKIP will need to choose. Farrage seems smart so I think he will go for the populist nationalism and use renationalisation as a method to keep the old Labour supporters and to attack the EU which has horrible double standards in this area.
That decision could add 3-4% to the Tory VI as the small-c conservatives peel off back to the Tories leaving just the ones who hate Cameron/Osborne in the UKIP fold.
Traditional labour and tory are not that far apart on many issues: welfare, immigration, EU, crime, grammar schools. Its new labour that differ on these.
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I stand corrected. Maybe I recalled a regional number - 25% looks low versus what one observes in any London school playground.
UKIP has one narrow window of opportunity to obtain what it wants, but not being very smart it's unclear its supporters understand this.
Mr Bond, your analysis of the demographics of the UK is interesting. If you are correct, is not the logical conclusion that it will be impossible for the UK to ever have a right of centre government after about 2020?
I'm sure that was the idea behind it. Asians break something like 90% for Labour, IIRC, so clearly the more Asians Labour can import, the better for Labour. This, of course, something we can address without needing to leave the EU.
Whether it will work or not is unclear; it's a Labour wheeze, and Labour f
Its not just asians that vote for left parties, its all immigrants in all western states, its a social issue that left wing parties care about the poor and the marginalised (like immigrants) so immigrants vote for the party that will take care of them. Just like old people vote for right wing paties because they offer a sence of maintaining the past which they grew up in. It happens everywhere there is democracy.
Indeed, Mr. Pulpstar. I recall hearing somewhere that Bismarck set the pension age at the level he did on the basis the majority would be dead before reaching it.
Now we've regularly got 20-30 year retirements. It's unaffordable, especially with terrible, prolonged and expensive diseases like Alzheimer's.
The solution Mr D is not to increase pension age but to slash the duty on booze and fags, reverse the smoking ban and slap big taxes on gymnasiums. People will die younger, but their diseases will be short and relatively cheap to cope with and the incidence of Alzheimers will drop like a paralysed falcon. Pensions crisis and health crisis solved in one bold movement.
With regards to the state pension age, I think people realise they'll live longer - it's just that they "had a deal" about when they could retire - a legitimate expectation - that they feel they should be held to.
I'm sure that was the idea behind it. Asians break something like 90% for Labour, IIRC, so clearly the more Asians Labour can import, the better for Labour. This, of course, is something we can address without needing to leave the EU and on which we don't need UKIP's contribution.
Conservatives can win asian areas in the right circumstances - look at these Coventry council elections in 2004 paying particular attention to Foleshill ward
Conservative Shabbir Ahmed 2,171 Conservative Mohammed Asif 2,155 Labour Malkiat Singh Auluck 1,923 Labour Satnam Singh Gill 1,899 Conservative Harjinder Singh Sehmi 1,876 Labour Marilyn Ann (Mal) Mutton 1,856 Liberal Democrat Geoffrey Brian Sewards 516 Socialist Alternative Lakshman James Hensman 33
And they can get beaten by maverick parties to their left as happened in Tower Hamlets and Bradford West too - so whilst they do break overwhelmingly Labour, particularly Asian Muslims it is not an invincible crucible.
Indeed, Mr. Pulpstar. I recall hearing somewhere that Bismarck set the pension age at the level he did on the basis the majority would be dead before reaching it.
Now we've regularly got 20-30 year retirements. It's unaffordable, especially with terrible, prolonged and expensive diseases like Alzheimer's.
They should set the pension age at about 15 years lower than the medium life expectancy per occupation (some have physically harder jobs that lower their life expectancy).
If (and it is a big if) the choice is between paying benefits to older people who do not work, and paying benefits to younger people who cannot find work, it is not immediately obvious that the first choice is economically, socially or even morally worse than the latter. Or better.
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I stand corrected. Maybe I recalled a regional number - 25% looks low versus what one observes in any London school playground.
UKIP has one narrow window of opportunity to obtain what it wants, but not being very smart it's unclear its supporters understand this.
Mr Bond, your analysis of the demographics of the UK is interesting. If you are correct, is not the logical conclusion that it will be impossible for the UK to ever have a right of centre government after about 2020?
Where it will work is in ensuring that nobody with UKIP's views will ever get near meaningful power, and no mainstream party will ever get near UKIP's views. 2015/2017 is, I infer, the last time anyone will offer a referendum.
Its not just asians that vote for left parties, its all immigrants in all western states, its a social issue that left wing parties care about the poor and the marginalised (like immigrants) so immigrants vote for the party that will take care of them. Just like old people vote for right wing paties because they offer a sence of maintaining the past which they grew up in. It happens everywhere there is democracy.
Well, quite - which goes back to the argument that if poverty were ever made history leftist parties would have to create more of it to shore up their vote. We observed this in 1997 to 2010 when Labour scoured the world for poor people to import.
Old people vote for the right because they seen what the left actually does with power; young people don't because they haven't. Old poor people vote for the left because having failed to earn it, they want it taken away from those who have, and given to themselves.
Imagine if 48% of christians in Britain went to the church once a week, most of them would still be open instead of been turned to flats (or even casinos).
No doubt but my point was if 48% of Muslims went to mosque but only men then it would be 96% of men.
(I'm not saying that is the case as I don't know what the different groups of Muslims in this country think on the women going to mosque issue.)
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I stand corrected. Maybe I recalled a regional number - 25% looks low versus what one observes in any London school playground.
UKIP has one narrow window of opportunity to obtain what it wants, but not being very smart it's unclear its supporters understand this.
Mr Bond, your analysis of the demographics of the UK is interesting. If you are correct, is not the logical conclusion that it will be impossible for the UK to ever have a right of centre government after about 2020?
Where it will work is in ensuring that nobody with UKIP's views will ever get near meaningful power, and no mainstream party will ever get near UKIP's views. 2015/2017 is, I infer, the last time anyone will offer a referendum.
Its not just asians that vote for left parties, its all immigrants in all western states, its a social issue that left wing parties care about the poor and the marginalised (like immigrants) so immigrants vote for the party that will take care of them. Just like old people vote for right wing paties because they offer a sence of maintaining the past which they grew up in. It happens everywhere there is democracy.
Well, quite - which goes back to the argument that if poverty were ever made history leftist parties would have to create more of it to shore up their vote. We observed this in 1997 to 2010 when Labour scoured the world for poor people to import.
Old people vote for the right because they seen what the left actually does with power; young people don't because they haven't. Old poor people vote for the left because having failed to earn it, they want it taken away from those who have, and given to themselves.
Right, you dont like the left. Or UKIP. We get it.
Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.
Why, dear God, why? We need social cohesion not the state funding separateness. It's as if no-one in the Labour hierarchy has read the reports into what happened in some Birmingham schools. Or, if they have, they have not understood why teaching children to think of themselves as separate and better than the country in which they live is so dangerous, for them and us.
The line could cut two ways: frighten blue kippers back to the Conservatives make red kippers feel more comfortable
Either works for the Conservatives, and both would be very helpful.
But how do red and blue 'kippers' live together? What kind of party is UKIP? How much traction is there for a Party of the Prejudiced?
Lib Dems managed it for years, light blue in the south and rural areas, lefties in the cities. It was only once they finally had to do something that they got rumbled, fortunately for Labour they turned out to be be pale blue.
So at its heart then UKIP is hypocritical? Like the LDs they stand for nothing?
If the numbers had workled out the LDs would have gone in coalition with labour and the non socialist tendency in them would have left. Thats what you get with a party of protest that then has to make some choices. With a UKIP party comprised as is suggested then it too would fall apart following thre first choice it had to make.
Precisely, a protest party can be all things to all people until the day of reckoning comes. The day of reckoning came for the Lib Dems in May 2010, we could wait a long time for UKIP's
If Ebola comes to the UK, as suggested is possible in todays newspapers, then most of us will be retiring sooner than we realised. I am not sure the UK would be ready to deal with an outbreak of such a deadly virus. London is an international hub and I suspect that it won't be long before someone travels here with a deadly virus such as this. UK health authorities have issued a warning to Doctors already.
Mr. 67, indeed. I suspect most countries would not be ready. From London it'd be easy for numerous other major cities internationally and the rest of the UK to be infected.
Still, we must hope it doesn't happen. If it did, unlike the swine flu 'pandemic', it could be the modern equivalent of the Black Death.
The outbreak's being going for a little while now and the Lagos case has been known about for a couple of days. Contingency plans should've been sharpened up posthaste.
I'm sure that was the idea behind it. Asians break something like 90% for Labour, IIRC, so clearly the more Asians Labour can import, the better for Labour. This, of course, is something we can address without needing to leave the EU and on which we don't need UKIP's contribution.
Conservatives can win asian areas in the right circumstances - look at these Coventry council elections in 2004 paying particular attention to Foleshill ward
Conservative Shabbir Ahmed 2,171 Conservative Mohammed Asif 2,155 Labour Malkiat Singh Auluck 1,923 Labour Satnam Singh Gill 1,899 Conservative Harjinder Singh Sehmi 1,876 Labour Marilyn Ann (Mal) Mutton 1,856 Liberal Democrat Geoffrey Brian Sewards 516 Socialist Alternative Lakshman James Hensman 33
And they can get beaten by maverick parties to their left as happened in Tower Hamlets and Bradford West too - so whilst they do break overwhelmingly Labour, particularly Asian Muslims it is not an invincible crucible.
Indeed, and of course turnout in Tower Hamlets can be above 100%, given the fondness the locals have for postal voting.
Looking forward, there clearly will - eventually - be a Conservative Asian demographic, which is why Cameron is absolutely right to distance the Conservatives as far as possible as early as possible from UKIP. Having treated or been associated with them in any way will be appallingly damaging, and he needs to be crystal clear, as he has been, that UKIP has nothing to say to Conservatism. UKIP needs to die and be seen to die through an abject, genuine and total lack of support.
As someone put it nicely downthread, what the more frenzied online UKIP nutters are after is for Conservatism to be replaced by a sort of vicious right-wingery, which they can somehow misrepresent as being the real thing. In effect, the more Conservatism detoxifies itself by getting rid of them, the angrier they become with Conservatives for having rumbled them.
Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.
That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.
Why, dear God, why? We need social cohesion not the state funding separateness. It's as if no-one in the Labour hierarchy has read the reports into what happened in some Birmingham schools. Or, if they have, they have not understood why teaching children to think of themselves as separate and better than the country in which they live is so dangerous, for them and us.
UKIPers are a bit slow.
Don't fall for the spin from the noted Islamophobic website.
1) The Story is from February,
2) It turns out to be personal opinion of one Labour party activist
3) It is not Labour policy
4) Labour's education team have denied it at the time
I'm sure that was the idea behind it. Asians break something like 90% for Labour, IIRC, so clearly the more Asians Labour can import, the better for Labour. This, of course, is something we can address without needing to leave the EU and on which we don't need UKIP's contribution.
Conservatives can win asian areas in the right circumstances - look at these Coventry council elections in 2004 paying particular attention to Foleshill ward
Conservative Shabbir Ahmed 2,171 Conservative Mohammed Asif 2,155 Labour Malkiat Singh Auluck 1,923 Labour Satnam Singh Gill 1,899 Conservative Harjinder Singh Sehmi 1,876 Labour Marilyn Ann (Mal) Mutton 1,856 Liberal Democrat Geoffrey Brian Sewards 516 Socialist Alternative Lakshman James Hensman 33
And they can get beaten by maverick parties to their left as happened in Tower Hamlets and Bradford West too - so whilst they do break overwhelmingly Labour, particularly Asian Muslims it is not an invincible crucible.
That is because muslims are though economically left wing (because the vast majority of them are poor) are very social conservatives so it doesn't exlude muslims to vote for the right (against gays for instance). In Tower Hamlets and Bradfowd W. its typical third world politics that prevailed, that is most worrying to me personally, if the voters behave like their counterparts from the third world then Britain will end up being a third world country.
That is the most powerfull argument against immigration from countries that are in worse shape than us, to avoid importing the people who ruined their own country and risk ruining this one too.
Went all the way to Glasgow to see the Hockey, to see England robbed by a rubbish TMO who deserves to be locked in a disused fridge with Katie Price and Peter Andre.
Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.
That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.
That amounts to saying the political spectrum is moving steadily leftwards so that its older denizens in staying still end up on the right.
This may be so, although it sits awkwardly with the fact that Labour looks quite right wing now compared to what it looked under, say, Kinnock.
Cameron today announced an immigration system that 'puts Britain first'
Does anybody else think its quite astonishing that we would ever have an immigration system that did anything but? [snip]
From today's article in the Telegraph:
"Under Labour, 2.5 million more people came to this country than left. As Lord Mandelson has admitted, they were practically sending out “search parties” for people to come here. There was a failed points system, which allowed so-called “highly skilled” workers to come for up to three years to look for work; often, they ended up stacking shelves. There was an increasingly generous, no-questions-asked welfare system which drew migrants to Britain for the wrong reasons. And unforgivably, while we had the highest rates of migration in our modern history, we also had well over five million people of working age on out-of-work benefits."
Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.
That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.
I wonder if there's a differential mortality rate?
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?
As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?
As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.
That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.
More eurosceptic, or happy with the EEC they joined but sceptical of the Euro and Federalism?
Opposed to *more* (and different) immigration but quite happy with people already settled here, and whom they grew up with?
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?
As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!
For those who think that ethnic minorities don’t/won’t support UKIP or Kipper-type policies I would suggest you look no further than the family of Priti Patel MP (Con).
I voted UKIP at the Euros (only). I did vote Blue at the Council elections.
Is it true what UKIP are saying that from 1st November 2014, the UK would not be able to legislate for an in/out referendum without the consent of the other 26 EU countries ?
I can't see that this would be true, as I can't see other EU countries agreeing to be restricted in whether they can hold a referendum or not.
Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.
That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.
That amounts to saying the political spectrum is moving steadily leftwards so that its older denizens in staying still end up on the right.
This may be so, although it sits awkwardly with the fact that Labour looks quite right wing now compared to what it looked under, say, Kinnock.
No, it's more that there's a tendency for people who once held left of centre views to shift rightwards as they get older. To take one example, the British Social Attitudes survey found that people born between 1945 and 1965 became increasingly hostile towards immigration between 2000 and 2012. The same shift has happened with attitudes towards the EU. Most polls find that most 60+ voters want to leave the EU. Back in 1975, these people were 20-30 year olds strongly in favour of the EEC.
Is it true what UKIP are saying that from 1st November 2014, the UK would not be able to legislate for an in/out referendum without the consent of the other 26 EU countries ?
THANK YOU. The polls for ages have been indicating UKIP voters are pretty split between preferring the Tories and Labour. Using who people voted for in 2010 has ALWAYS been a very flawed metric -- that election was when the Tories were at a 20-year peak and Labour were at their second-lowest point ever, so any subsample of almost any group is going to be skewed to the Tories. It was always ridiculous to think that a study solely based on 2010 represented the natural/normal state of affairs.
While UKIP have picked off their fair share of lifelong Tory voters and lifelong Labour voters, the main people they've been winning over imo are the typical swing voters. Most swing/floating voters are not "in the centre ground" like Westminster talking heads all think, they're generally people who are even less political than most of the public and don't pay all that much attention. Many of them have been driven to UKIP out of sheer frustration at how poor the two main parties are and how they never seem to talk about things they care about. Most of UKIP's hotspots (with some exceptions) are in areas which are traditionally Con-Lab swing areas, with loads of floating voters.
Is it true what UKIP are saying that from 1st November 2014, the UK would not be able to legislate for an in/out referendum without the consent of the other 26 EU countries ?
I can't see that this would be true, as I can't see other EU countries agreeing to be restricted in whether they can hold a referendum or not.
Exhaustive ballot, IIRC. It’s roughly how the Pope is elected. The advantage is that people can change their minds about canndidates as the ballot progresses, as opposed, for example, STV where one has to decide once and for all the order of ones preferences.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.
That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.
The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change. Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:
Iran-Iraq war Libya bombing Computers Internet End of Cold War End of Communism European Union Eurozone Eurozone Crisis World financial crisis War on Terror Iraq War Yugoslavia Mass Immigration Russian resurgence China a Superpower Gulf War Third Oil shock Asian financial crisis Dot Com boom Dot Com bust Housing boom Housing bust New Labour Thatcher ousted ect ect ect.
We can make a new "We didn't start the fire" song.
An open primary with run-offs? To be cynical, the "open" part means the local party's input is reduced, but the non-party members involved become more likely to vote Conservative in future.
An open primary with run-offs? To be cynical, the "open" part means the local party's input is reduced, but the non-party members involved become more likely to vote Conservative in future.
Is it true what UKIP are saying that from 1st November 2014, the UK would not be able to legislate for an in/out referendum without the consent of the other 26 EU countries ?
I can't see that this would be true, as I can't see other EU countries agreeing to be restricted in whether they can hold a referendum or not.
An open primary with run-offs? To be cynical, the "open" part means the local party's input is reduced, but the non-party members involved become more likely to vote Conservative in future.
So not AV?
AV is also known as "Instant" run-off voting. If there are several rounds of voting, the run-off bit isn't "instant"!
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
That's something of a caricature.
I think that women who vote UKIP envisage a more important role for themselves than the one you imagine.
The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change. Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:
This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0
Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
People who remember the 1950s are no longer middle aged. Nor is it obvious that life was simpler then -- the cold war was at its height with very real fears of mutually assured destruction. Britain was humiliated over Suez. At a more local level were razor gangs and smash and grab raids. Enoch Powell was encouraging mass immigration.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change. Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:
This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0
Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)
The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change. Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:
This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0
Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)
Well, this was number 1 exactly 25 years ago this week: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmFD8_0q9U
Pete Waterman's one saving grace is that he's a big train-fan
The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change. Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:
This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0
Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)
Well, this was number 1 exactly 25 years ago this week: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmFD8_0q9U
Pete Waterman's one saving grace is that he's a big train-fan
You meant to type many saving graces.
How can you diss the man who brought us Steps, Rick Astley and Jason Donovan.
The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change. Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:
This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0
Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)
Well, this was number 1 exactly 25 years ago this week: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmFD8_0q9U
Pete Waterman's one saving grace is that he's a big train-fan
You meant to type many saving graces.
How can you diss the man who brought us Steps, Rick Astley and Jason Donovan.
I was only joking TSE! I do remember Rick and Jason's 80s hits very well. Steps I'm not too familiar with as I Iost interest in music during most of the 90s.
The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change. Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:
This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0
Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)
Well, this was number 1 exactly 25 years ago this week: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmFD8_0q9U
Pete Waterman's one saving grace is that he's a big train-fan
You meant to type many saving graces.
How can you diss the man who brought us Steps, Rick Astley and Jason Donovan.
I was only joking TSE! I do remember Rick and Jason's 80s hits very well. Steps I'm not too familiar with as I Iost interest in music during most of the 90s.
I think tonight's Nighthawks will be Peter Waterman/Steps themed.
Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.
That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.
That amounts to saying the political spectrum is moving steadily leftwards so that its older denizens in staying still end up on the right.
This may be so, although it sits awkwardly with the fact that Labour looks quite right wing now compared to what it looked under, say, Kinnock.
No, it's more that there's a tendency for people who once held left of centre views to shift rightwards as they get older. To take one example, the British Social Attitudes survey found that people born between 1945 and 1965 became increasingly hostile towards immigration between 2000 and 2012. The same shift has happened with attitudes towards the EU. Most polls find that most 60+ voters want to leave the EU. Back in 1975, these people were 20-30 year olds strongly in favour of the EEC.
Those 60+ year olds might well vote in favour of the EEC today, given half the chance, as might also the other age groups. Sadly that chance will never be provided.
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?
As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!
Every Israeli I've ever met was relieved to bits to get through their military service.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network McARSE - My Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors
YAWN
Very funny BBC sports report last night - the reporter, getting them as close as she could, said: English, Welsh and Scottish athletes have won medals today..
Would love to take a look at the BBC memo instructing how to deal with UK athletes/medal winners...
Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, Television North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe
Rosenbergs, H-Bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom Brando, The King And I, and The Catcher In The Rye Eisenhower, Vaccine, England's got a new queen Marciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye
We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it
Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, Dacron Dien Bien Phu Falls, Rock Around the Clock Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Khrushchev Princess Grace, Peyton Place, Trouble in the Suez
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
Yep. What gives the UKIP game away is the yearning for a return to the oppression of homosexuals, 1950s-style. That this can seriously matter to them so much points up both the triviality and the nastiness of this bit of the spectrum.
In a way, the Tories actually need UKIP to act as a vessel for this kind of poison. A UKIP permanently stranded on about 4% of the vote would be ideal for both the Tories, to whom they'd present no threat, and for the UKIP troughers, who'd be at no serious risk either of having to do any work or relinquish any perks.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
People who remember the 1950s are no longer middle aged. Nor is it obvious that life was simpler then -- the cold war was at its height with very real fears of mutually assured destruction. Britain was humiliated over Suez. At a more local level were razor gangs and smash and grab raids. Enoch Powell was encouraging mass immigration.
Fears of a nuclear war were very real. Then there was, for men, National Service. Some now have happy memories of it, but many hated it, and most, of my friends anyway, disliked the disruption it caused to their lives. For some, of course, it was a means of getting away from home! One of my memories of the early 50’s is of seeing adverts around Southend for trips from the Pier to see the coast of France! Can’t imagine that being a selling point today!
And no, I’m not UKIP and can’t see myself or my wife ever voting that way! Although her vote is her vote!
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.
Like politicians taking an oath to uphold the law or something, it wont work if someone doesn't check what they are doing and getting rid of them if they break their oath and if someone existed then why simply check on abiding the oath instead of the law.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.
You could also argue that militant wasn't a separate party.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.
Yes, while they were on the inside. Once winkled out, their impact abated.
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?
As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!
Very funny TSE. For your interest only Sunnil.
1) Milhemet Adhasha (war of attrition, Suez front) 1967 -1969 various times on reserve duty about 4 months total in all.
2) Milhemet Yom Kippor (Yom Kippor war) October 1973-November 1973 although I did 5 months continuous service. Egyptian Front, capture of Fayid air base.
3. Milhemet Levanon ( Labanese war ) 1982 First two weeks, then released from service.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.
You could also argue that militant wasn't a separate party.
Well, quite - they infiltrated the party and caused it to be associated with a lot of extreme views that bore little relation to what the majority of its supporters expected it to do in power. Militant did this as part of a deliberate strategy of entryism knowing they could never get themselves elected if they did stand as an actual party.
So they invaded a suitable host and meanwhile tried to argue that they were simply a newspaper, and not a party within a party.
UKIP's problem is they lack the self-awareness Militant had, the ability to see how you are seen. They have consequently come out into the open and been apparently surprised to be spotted as racists, loonies and fruitcakes right away. They continue to insist that dog whistles aren't dog whistles, which is to pi55 down the voters' necks and tell them it's raining.
We are now at or past peak kipper and in 10 years' time or so UKIP will be an issue for the Tories like Militant was an issue for Labour in 1997.
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?
As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!
Very funny TSE. For your interest only Sunnil.
1) Milhemet Adhasha (war of attrition, Suez front) 1967 -1969 various times on reserve duty about 4 months total in all.
2) Milhemet Yom Kippor (Yom Kippor war) October 1973-November 1973 although I did 5 months continuous service. Egyptian Front, capture of Fayid air base.
3. Milhemet Levanon ( Labanese war ) 1982 First two weeks, then released from service.
It doesn't sound very different in scope, duration, territory or results than the first 3 crusades.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.
You could also argue that militant wasn't a separate party.
Well, quite - they infiltrated the party and caused it to be associated with a lot of extreme views that bore little relation to what the majority of its supporters expected it to do in power. Militant did this as part of a deliberate strategy of entryism knowing they could never get themselves elected if they did stand as an actual party.
So they invaded a suitable host and meanwhile tried to argue that they were simply a newspaper, and not a party within a party.
UKIP's problem is they lack the self-awareness Militant had, the ability to see how you are seen. They have consequently come out into the open and been apparently surprised to be spotted as racists, loonies and fruitcakes right away. They continue to insist that dog whistles aren't dog whistles, which is to pi55 down the voters' necks and tell them it's raining.
We are now at or past peak kipper and in 10 years' time or so UKIP will be an issue for the Tories like Militant was an issue for Labour in 1997.
What were the numbers from the other day - population up 3-5% since 2008, GDP up 0.2% (or something like that).
Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, Television North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe
Rosenbergs, H-Bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom Brando, The King And I, and The Catcher In The Rye Eisenhower, Vaccine, England's got a new queen Marciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye
We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it
Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, Dacron Dien Bien Phu Falls, Rock Around the Clock Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Khrushchev Princess Grace, Peyton Place, Trouble in the Suez
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.
You could also argue that militant wasn't a separate party.
Well, quite - they infiltrated the party and caused it to be associated with a lot of extreme views that bore little relation to what the majority of its supporters expected it to do in power. Militant did this as part of a deliberate strategy of entryism knowing they could never get themselves elected if they did stand as an actual party.
So they invaded a suitable host and meanwhile tried to argue that they were simply a newspaper, and not a party within a party.
UKIP's problem is they lack the self-awareness Militant had, the ability to see how you are seen. They have consequently come out into the open and been apparently surprised to be spotted as racists, loonies and fruitcakes right away. They continue to insist that dog whistles aren't dog whistles, which is to pi55 down the voters' necks and tell them it's raining.
We are now at or past peak kipper and in 10 years' time or so UKIP will be an issue for the Tories like Militant was an issue for Labour in 1997.
What were the numbers from the other day - population up 3-5% since 2008, GDP up 0.2% (or something like that).
Partly explicable in terms of life expectancy, I'd guess. But to the extent that it's immigration, these people aren't going to be supporting UKIP.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.
You could also argue that militant wasn't a separate party.
Well, quite - they infiltrated the party and caused it to be associated with a lot of extreme views that bore little relation to what the majority of its supporters expected it to do in power. Militant did this as part of a deliberate strategy of entryism knowing they could never get themselves elected if they did stand as an actual party.
So they invaded a suitable host and meanwhile tried to argue that they were simply a newspaper, and not a party within a party.
UKIP's problem is they lack the self-awareness Militant had, the ability to see how you are seen. They have consequently come out into the open and been apparently surprised to be spotted as racists, loonies and fruitcakes right away. They continue to insist that dog whistles aren't dog whistles, which is to pi55 down the voters' necks and tell them it's raining.
We are now at or past peak kipper and in 10 years' time or so UKIP will be an issue for the Tories like Militant was an issue for Labour in 1997.
UKIP is a separate party and cannot be internally dealt with like militant. It will be a problem for the tories as the LD were for Labour.
But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,
I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?
The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?
As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).
I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.
Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?
The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!
Very funny TSE. For your interest only Sunnil.
1) Milhemet Adhasha (war of attrition, Suez front) 1967 -1969 various times on reserve duty about 4 months total in all.
2) Milhemet Yom Kippor (Yom Kippor war) October 1973-November 1973 although I did 5 months continuous service. Egyptian Front, capture of Fayid air base.
3. Milhemet Levanon ( Labanese war ) 1982 First two weeks, then released from service.
Ah the third one, that's the one where the Israeli Defence Minister had to resign for being culpable for the massacre of innocent Muslims.
The Israelis showed their revulsion for this chap and massacres of Muslims, they eventually made him Prime Minister.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.
You could also argue that militant wasn't a separate party.
Well, quite - they infiltrated the party and caused it to be associated with a lot of extreme views that bore little relation to what the majority of its supporters expected it to do in power. Militant did this as part of a deliberate strategy of entryism knowing they could never get themselves elected if they did stand as an actual party.
So they invaded a suitable host and meanwhile tried to argue that they were simply a newspaper, and not a party within a party.
UKIP's problem is they lack the self-awareness Militant had, the ability to see how you are seen. They have consequently come out into the open and been apparently surprised to be spotted as racists, loonies and fruitcakes right away. They continue to insist that dog whistles aren't dog whistles, which is to pi55 down the voters' necks and tell them it's raining.
We are now at or past peak kipper and in 10 years' time or so UKIP will be an issue for the Tories like Militant was an issue for Labour in 1997.
UKIP is a separate party and cannot be internally dealt with like militant. It will be a problem for the tories as the LD were for Labour.
It's the fact that Militant weren't a separate party that made Militant so hard to deal with. UKIP is a separate party and thus the Tories can point to UKIP and say "You see all this? This isn't us".
Or buy in pounds/dollars and sell in a hard currency.
True the debt was accumulated in 2007 and in swiss franks but lets see how much it will fetch against its original price of 1 billion $ .
Yeah I don't know really but one of the theories about the flood of BRICS money into USUK is dumping pounds and dollars for real assets.
Well one of the reasons the pound is so high is hot money flows to London some on real estate and some in the city, it has created a huge current account deficit though that makes the economy very dependable on that hot money, unstable and crisis prone.
Its the worst time to end globalisation, but the state department mandarins (the ones who draft foreign policy for the west) have their carrers as a priority not the british economy.
What's the worst that can happen if Ed gets in next year?
How many of these will he push through?
(1) Minimum wage to go up with inflation/average earnings, whichever is the highest. (2) Benefits to go up with inflation (3) Quotas to be compulsory for all public sector jobs above a certain grade, based on gender, race, and sexual inclination. (4) Top rate of taxation to be 60% (5) A special annual bankers’ tax on bonuses (6) Removal of bedroom tax for social housing (7) Renationalisation of railways and energy production (8) Massive increase in green energy production – producing millions of new jobs (9) Massive capital expenditure on point (8) causing GDP to soar. (10) EU to monitor all carbon emissions and impose penalties.
What's the worst that can happen if Ed gets in next year?
How many of these will he push through?
(1) Minimum wage to go up with inflation/average earnings, whichever is the highest. (2) Benefits to go up with inflation (3) Quotas to be compulsory for all public sector jobs above a certain grade, based on gender, race, and sexual inclination. (4) Top rate of taxation to be 60% (5) A special annual bankers’ tax on bonuses (6) Removal of bedroom tax for social housing (7) Renationalisation of railways and energy production (8) Massive increase in green energy production – producing millions of new jobs (9) Massive capital expenditure on point (8) causing GDP to soar. (10) EU to monitor all carbon emissions and impose penalties.
Joy unconfined.
11) 1M+ public sector workers rehired on nice defined benefit pensions....
If Ebola comes to the UK, as suggested is possible in todays newspapers, then most of us will be retiring sooner than we realised. I am not sure the UK would be ready to deal with an outbreak of such a deadly virus. London is an international hub and I suspect that it won't be long before someone travels here with a deadly virus such as this. UK health authorities have issued a warning to Doctors already.
A serious public health issue but one that it is not as serious as the current public health emergency of suicide,especially in men,especially men in their early forties.The local coroner raised this before he retired and my neighbour's son hung himself 6 months. Suicide is a key public health indicator which is being taken very seriously by psychiatry-it is even being suggested that lithium carbonate,a mood stabiliser,is put in the water supply. If this situation on mental health and suicide is not treated as seriously as an outbreak of Ebola,Dengue Fever or Swine Flu,it will spread and more people will die unavoidably.
@sean_fear they don't actually remember the 1950s, it's just that they hark after what they thnk they were like. I mean society in the 1950s, not the Cold War politics.
I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.
Pretty much desribes @isam of this parish down to a tee.
Yep. What gives the UKIP game away is the yearning for a return to the oppression of homosexuals, 1950s-style. That this can seriously matter to them so much points up both the triviality and the nastiness of this bit of the spectrum.
In a way, the Tories actually need UKIP to act as a vessel for this kind of poison. A UKIP permanently stranded on about 4% of the vote would be ideal for both the Tories, to whom they'd present no threat, and for the UKIP troughers, who'd be at no serious risk either of having to do any work or relinquish any perks.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
I appreciate you're just trolling (as you usually do, when discussing UKIP).
There is nothing to suggest that UKIP favours the recriminalisation of homosexuality.
The social conservatism which you consider so abhorrent, when expressed by UKIP supporters, is very widespread among Conservative supporters (and even more, Conservative members). When you slag off UKIP, you slag off your own people.
Comments
Whether it will work or not is unclear; it's a Labour wheeze, and Labour f<cks up everything it touches, so it probably won't work. Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.
There seems no reason why Muslims would be any different so in general I doubt this wheeze will work. Muslims will grow up, work hard, become prosperous and then vote against a Labour party that wants to punish and expropriate them for having shunned a client's life on benefits to do so.
Where it will work is in ensuring that nobody with UKIP's views will ever get near meaningful power, and no mainstream party will ever get near UKIP's views. 2015/2017 is, I infer, the last time anyone will offer a referendum.
Just like old people vote for right wing paties because they offer a sence of maintaining the past which they grew up in.
It happens everywhere there is democracy.
I fully expect to work until at least 70.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Council_election,_2004
Conservative Shabbir Ahmed 2,171
Conservative Mohammed Asif 2,155
Labour Malkiat Singh Auluck 1,923
Labour Satnam Singh Gill 1,899
Conservative Harjinder Singh Sehmi 1,876
Labour Marilyn Ann (Mal) Mutton 1,856
Liberal Democrat Geoffrey Brian Sewards 516
Socialist Alternative Lakshman James Hensman 33
And they can get beaten by maverick parties to their left as happened in Tower Hamlets and Bradford West too - so whilst they do break overwhelmingly Labour, particularly Asian Muslims it is not an invincible crucible.
Old people vote for the right because they seen what the left actually does with power; young people don't because they haven't. Old poor people vote for the left because having failed to earn it, they want it taken away from those who have, and given to themselves.
(I'm not saying that is the case as I don't know what the different groups of Muslims in this country think on the women going to mosque issue.)
Does anybody else think its quite astonishing that we would ever have an immigration system that did anything but?
'we are moving from a foreigner first immigration system to a Britain first one'
amazing really.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/is-ebola-coming-to-britain-uk-health-officials-issue-warning-to-doctors-as-outbreak-fears-grow-9634779.html
Still, we must hope it doesn't happen. If it did, unlike the swine flu 'pandemic', it could be the modern equivalent of the Black Death.
The outbreak's being going for a little while now and the Lagos case has been known about for a couple of days. Contingency plans should've been sharpened up posthaste.
Looking forward, there clearly will - eventually - be a Conservative Asian demographic, which is why Cameron is absolutely right to distance the Conservatives as far as possible as early as possible from UKIP. Having treated or been associated with them in any way will be appallingly damaging, and he needs to be crystal clear, as he has been, that UKIP has nothing to say to Conservatism. UKIP needs to die and be seen to die through an abject, genuine and total lack of support.
As someone put it nicely downthread, what the more frenzied online UKIP nutters are after is for Conservatism to be replaced by a sort of vicious right-wingery, which they can somehow misrepresent as being the real thing. In effect, the more Conservatism detoxifies itself by getting rid of them, the angrier they become with Conservatives for having rumbled them.
Don't fall for the spin from the noted Islamophobic website.
1) The Story is from February,
2) It turns out to be personal opinion of one Labour party activist
3) It is not Labour policy
4) Labour's education team have denied it at the time
Apart from that, the headline is accurate.
That is the most powerfull argument against immigration from countries that are in worse shape than us, to avoid importing the people who ruined their own country and risk ruining this one too.
cool poster
This may be so, although it sits awkwardly with the fact that Labour looks quite right wing now compared to what it looked under, say, Kinnock.
"Under Labour, 2.5 million more people came to this country than left. As Lord Mandelson has admitted, they were practically sending out “search parties” for people to come here. There was a failed points system, which allowed so-called “highly skilled” workers to come for up to three years to look for work; often, they ended up stacking shelves. There was an increasingly generous, no-questions-asked welfare system which drew migrants to Britain for the wrong reasons. And unforgivably, while we had the highest rates of migration in our modern history, we also had well over five million people of working age on out-of-work benefits."
Not 'Amazing' - it was criminal.
Opposed to *more* (and different) immigration but quite happy with people already settled here, and whom they grew up with?
If only it wasnt complete and utter b*llox!
It seems you really can fool all the UKIPers all the time.
WTF has HS2 got to do with this ?
It's how the Tory candidate in Louth was chosen.
Each candidate was interviewed and put through a Q&A session from the floor before a vote from the audience.
The winner had to receive 50% of the votes cast. The lowest scoring candidates were eliminated before a re-ballot, until the rule was satisfied.
http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Victoria-Atkins-named-Conservative-Parliamentary/story-21965862-detail/story.html
I can't see that this would be true, as I can't see other EU countries agreeing to be restricted in whether they can hold a referendum or not.
While UKIP have picked off their fair share of lifelong Tory voters and lifelong Labour voters, the main people they've been winning over imo are the typical swing voters. Most swing/floating voters are not "in the centre ground" like Westminster talking heads all think, they're generally people who are even less political than most of the public and don't pay all that much attention. Many of them have been driven to UKIP out of sheer frustration at how poor the two main parties are and how they never seem to talk about things they care about. Most of UKIP's hotspots (with some exceptions) are in areas which are traditionally Con-Lab swing areas, with loads of floating voters.
Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:
Iran-Iraq war
Libya bombing
Computers
Internet
End of Cold War
End of Communism
European Union
Eurozone
Eurozone Crisis
World financial crisis
War on Terror
Iraq War
Yugoslavia
Mass Immigration
Russian resurgence
China a Superpower
Gulf War
Third Oil shock
Asian financial crisis
Dot Com boom
Dot Com bust
Housing boom
Housing bust
New Labour
Thatcher ousted
ect ect ect.
We can make a new "We didn't start the fire" song.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0
It seems you really can fool all the UKIPers all the time.
I said it's a cool poster and it is. I have no idea if it's true or not.
Official video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w
Relax was the FGTH song that was banned!
I think that women who vote UKIP envisage a more important role for themselves than the one you imagine.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w
F*ck Off Noddy
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmFD8_0q9U
Pete Waterman's one saving grace is that he's a big train-fan
How can you diss the man who brought us Steps, Rick Astley and Jason Donovan.
Bankers should take a Hippocratic oath to restore virtue to the financial sector
A new report calls for bankers to make a public commitment to consider their social impacts and prioritise customers' needs
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/banking-reform-bankers-hippocratic-oath-report?CMP=twt_gu
The only thing that will ever keep most bankers honest is the prospect of losing their wealth and its trappings.
Would love to take a look at the BBC memo instructing how to deal with UK athletes/medal winners...
Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray
South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio
Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, Television
North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe
Rosenbergs, H-Bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom
Brando, The King And I, and The Catcher In The Rye
Eisenhower, Vaccine, England's got a new queen
Marciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
Joseph Stalin, Malenkov, Nasser and Prokofiev
Rockefeller, Campanella, Communist Bloc
Roy Cohn, Juan Peron, Toscanini, Dacron
Dien Bien Phu Falls, Rock Around the Clock
Einstein, James Dean, Brooklyn's got a winning team
Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland
Bardot, Budapest, Alabama, Khrushchev
Princess Grace, Peyton Place, Trouble in the Suez
In a way, the Tories actually need UKIP to act as a vessel for this kind of poison. A UKIP permanently stranded on about 4% of the vote would be ideal for both the Tories, to whom they'd present no threat, and for the UKIP troughers, who'd be at no serious risk either of having to do any work or relinquish any perks.
If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.
For some, of course, it was a means of getting away from home!
One of my memories of the early 50’s is of seeing adverts around Southend for trips from the Pier to see the coast of France! Can’t imagine that being a selling point today!
And no, I’m not UKIP and can’t see myself or my wife ever voting that way! Although her vote is her vote!
For your interest only Sunnil.
1) Milhemet Adhasha (war of attrition, Suez front) 1967 -1969 various times on reserve duty about 4 months total in all.
2) Milhemet Yom Kippor (Yom Kippor war) October 1973-November 1973 although I did 5 months continuous service. Egyptian Front, capture of Fayid air base.
3. Milhemet Levanon ( Labanese war ) 1982 First two weeks, then released from service.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-29/london-s-gherkin-tower-offered-for-sale-by-its-lenders.html
So they invaded a suitable host and meanwhile tried to argue that they were simply a newspaper, and not a party within a party.
UKIP's problem is they lack the self-awareness Militant had, the ability to see how you are seen. They have consequently come out into the open and been apparently surprised to be spotted as racists, loonies and fruitcakes right away. They continue to insist that dog whistles aren't dog whistles, which is to pi55 down the voters' necks and tell them it's raining.
We are now at or past peak kipper and in 10 years' time or so UKIP will be an issue for the Tories like Militant was an issue for Labour in 1997.
London's famed 'Gherkin' is on sale for £650 million http://u.afp.com/edU
It will be a problem for the tories as the LD were for Labour.
The Israelis showed their revulsion for this chap and massacres of Muslims, they eventually made him Prime Minister.
Crank up Vera ... "we'll meet again..."
Its the worst time to end globalisation, but the state department mandarins (the ones who draft foreign policy for the west) have their carrers as a priority not the british economy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709233/Israeli-leader-Netanyahu-vows-continue-strikes-Gaza-entire-Hamas-tunnel-network-destroyed-North-Korea-deny-providing-arms-Palestinian-group.html
What's the worst that can happen if Ed gets in next year?
How many of these will he push through?
(1) Minimum wage to go up with inflation/average earnings, whichever is the highest.
(2) Benefits to go up with inflation
(3) Quotas to be compulsory for all public sector jobs above a certain grade, based on gender, race, and sexual inclination.
(4) Top rate of taxation to be 60%
(5) A special annual bankers’ tax on bonuses
(6) Removal of bedroom tax for social housing
(7) Renationalisation of railways and energy production
(8) Massive increase in green energy production – producing millions of new jobs
(9) Massive capital expenditure on point (8) causing GDP to soar.
(10) EU to monitor all carbon emissions and impose penalties.
Joy unconfined.
Suicide is a key public health indicator which is being taken very seriously by psychiatry-it is even being suggested that lithium carbonate,a mood stabiliser,is put in the water supply.
If this situation on mental health and suicide is not treated as seriously as an outbreak of Ebola,Dengue Fever or Swine Flu,it will spread and more people will die unavoidably.
There is nothing to suggest that UKIP favours the recriminalisation of homosexuality.
The social conservatism which you consider so abhorrent, when expressed by UKIP supporters, is very widespread among Conservative supporters (and even more, Conservative members). When you slag off UKIP, you slag off your own people.