The learning for UKIP from Scotland is that it is not enough to want out. You must carefully plan for and articulate a credible alternative. Neither SNP or UKIP has done this yet.
Not sure "alternative" is quite the right word in relation to the EU. What is it that we have as members of the EU that we would be denied if we were out? There is obviously significant scope for playing up uncertainties about trade dependent jobs, and perhaps a bit of scaremongering about holidays (and more nuanced arguments about having to sign up to the bulk of the EU programme but have no influence over it) but nobody will doubt that the UK is perfectly capable of standing on its own as a viable state. And there would be few arguments about whether the UK will have less money to spend as a result of losing EU subsidies.
Under FPTP though you have to win the centre and hold your base, that is why Blair did so well, and indeed Major won in 1992. If you only appeal to your base you will be thrashed, as Hague and Foot were on the most rightwing and leftwing manifestos either main party has produced
Isn't the point that to win at FPTP you have to seize and hold the common ground not the centre ground. If one looks at the one nation conservatives their concentration was on policies that could appeal to the working classes as much as to the middle and upper class voters and that didn't mean the triangulation nonsense of Clinton, Blair and, now, Cameron.
It maybe that I shall be proved very wrong but it seems to me a lot of support for UKIP is coming from the fact that they are not class based and do appeal to voters across the spectrum. The are in fact whether by design, though more probably, by accident making a grab for the common ground.
Class as a predictor of voting patterns has been in a fairly long term decline. Off the top of my head UKIP are somewhat less predictable class wise in opinion poll results, but not by a massive amount (but as I said, off the top of my head).
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Could you possibly do one and go stalk someone else. You sound like a sad boring friendless spinster trying to latch onto someone on a web site.
So that's a "no" then - no data, just bile, prejudice invective and ignorance.
Which I shall take great pleasure in continuing to highlight.
Post some polling data and prove your point - or come across as a vacuous frightened windbag.
Your choice.
Moderator when are you going to be consistent and get these lunatics off my back. This idiot needs locking up somewhere dark in a straightjacket. At least ask loonies like her and JJ et al to post to each other and leave me in peace to discuss topics with intelligent people
"A UKIP win, consolidating their position as the fourth major national party, would go still further to undermining the legitimacy of FPTP;"
No it wouldn't. It would show that FPTP works in that it is able to allow the election of minor parties. Undermining the legitimacy of FPTP would mean having no UKIP MPs, very few Lib Dem MPs, and very many UKIP and Lib Dem (and Green, etc.) votes.
The learning for UKIP from Scotland is that it is not enough to want out. You must carefully plan for and articulate a credible alternative. Neither SNP or UKIP has done this yet.
Not sure "alternative" is quite the right word in relation to the EU. What is it that we have as members of the EU that we would be denied if we were out? There is obviously significant scope for playing up uncertainties about trade dependent jobs, and perhaps a bit of scaremongering about holidays (and more nuanced arguments about having to sign up to the bulk of the EU programme but have no influence over it) but nobody will doubt that the UK is perfectly capable of standing on its own as a viable state. And there would be few arguments about whether the UK will have less money to spend as a result of losing EU subsidies.
The trade dependent jobs argument is so dodgy. There are several countries with free trade agreements with the EU despite not being members.
"He's not the candidate because he was the MP, he's the candidate because UKIP's NEC said he was the candidate"
I believe it was Mr. Loony, gent of this parish, who pointed out on here yesterday that the UKIP rule books states that in the event of a by-election it is for the NEC to choose the candidate. If that is true then nobody should have any beef about what has happened. A bit more tact would have been good but that Lord fellow (who I was inclined to think was a spoof when I saw some of his pronouncements - machine gun up his nose, indeed - what a prick) has no real complaint.
When MPs were criticised about their expenses, a response was "it's allowed by the rules". Do you think that nobody should have a beef about the expenses, since they were in the rule book?
"He's not the candidate because he was the MP, he's the candidate because UKIP's NEC said he was the candidate"
I believe it was Mr. Loony, gent of this parish, who pointed out on here yesterday that the UKIP rule books states that in the event of a by-election it is for the NEC to choose the candidate. If that is true then nobody should have any beef about what has happened. A bit more tact would have been good but that Lord fellow (who I was inclined to think was a spoof when I saw some of his pronouncements - machine gun up his nose, indeed - what a prick) has no real complaint.
On the one hand that's true and in party procedural terms it all went through by the book.
In a wider view they could've run a selection process if they wanted to (I think they should have if Carswell was game for it and was pretty certain to win).
Added on to this is Carswell's vocal opposition to central party selection procedures.
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Could you possibly do one and go stalk someone else. You sound like a sad boring friendless spinster trying to latch onto someone on a web site.
So that's a "no" then - no data, just bile, prejudice invective and ignorance.
Which I shall take great pleasure in continuing to highlight.
Post some polling data and prove your point - or come across as a vacuous frightened windbag.
Your choice.
Moderator when are you going to be consistent and get these lunatics off my back. This idiot needs locking up somewhere dark in a straightjacket. At least ask loonies like her and JJ et al to post to each other and leave me in peace to discuss topics with intelligent people
Somebody is trying for the martyr award. Boo boo they banned me and I did nothing wrong.
This is a specific ethnic issue more than a religious one, says a community worker in a city near Rotherham. Young Pakistani men are increasingly alienated from their conservative parents, who want them to marry girls from back home (often the Mirpur district in Kashmir) and also from religious leaders, who often cannot speak English. Discussions of sex are taboo at home and in the mosque, so some learn about it from pornography, about misogyny from rap music and come to view white women as fair game (though the report also suggests Pakistani girls were abused, and that this was hushed up).
One way of dealing with that would be to reintroduce the primary purpose rule or a variant of it so as to make it harder for people to be forced to marry people from home (and how telling it is that British citizens born here should see Kashmir as home). Making speaking English a requirement should be a sine qua non. Intelligent sex education in schools. There are things we can and should be doing if we're ever going to get out of the cycle of abuse, prosecution, report, shocked horror, lessons learned blathering: repeat ad nauseam.
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Could you possibly do one and go stalk someone else. You sound like a sad boring friendless spinster trying to latch onto someone on a web site.
So that's a "no" then - no data, just bile, prejudice invective and ignorance.
Which I shall take great pleasure in continuing to highlight.
Post some polling data and prove your point - or come across as a vacuous frightened windbag.
Your choice.
Moderator when are you going to be consistent and get these lunatics off my back. This idiot needs locking up somewhere dark in a straightjacket. At least ask loonies like her and JJ et al to post to each other and leave me in peace to discuss topics with intelligent people
Running to teacher?
Why not post polling data to back up these "intelligent discussions" you claim you want to have?
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Could you possibly do one and go stalk someone else. You sound like a sad boring friendless spinster trying to latch onto someone on a web site.
So that's a "no" then - no data, just bile, prejudice invective and ignorance.
Which I shall take great pleasure in continuing to highlight.
Post some polling data and prove your point - or come across as a vacuous frightened windbag.
Your choice.
Moderator when are you going to be consistent and get these lunatics off my back. This idiot needs locking up somewhere dark in a straightjacket. At least ask loonies like her and JJ et al to post to each other and leave me in peace to discuss topics with intelligent people
Somebody is trying for the martyr award. Boo boo they banned me and I did nothing wrong.
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Could you possibly do one and go stalk someone else. You sound like a sad boring friendless spinster trying to latch onto someone on a web site.
So that's a "no" then - no data, just bile, prejudice invective and ignorance.
Which I shall take great pleasure in continuing to highlight.
Post some polling data and prove your point - or come across as a vacuous frightened windbag.
Your choice.
Moderator when are you going to be consistent and get these lunatics off my back. This idiot needs locking up somewhere dark in a straightjacket. At least ask loonies like her and JJ et al to post to each other and leave me in peace to discuss topics with intelligent people
Running to teacher?
Why not post polling data to back up these "intelligent discussions" you claim you want to have?
"He's not the candidate because he was the MP, he's the candidate because UKIP's NEC said he was the candidate"
I believe it was Mr. Loony, gent of this parish, who pointed out on here yesterday that the UKIP rule books states that in the event of a by-election it is for the NEC to choose the candidate. If that is true then nobody should have any beef about what has happened. A bit more tact would have been good but that Lord fellow (who I was inclined to think was a spoof when I saw some of his pronouncements - machine gun up his nose, indeed - what a prick) has no real complaint.
On the one hand that's true and in party procedural terms it all went through by the book.
In a wider view they could've run a selection process if they wanted to (I think they should have if Carswell was game for it and was pretty certain to win).
Added on to this is Carswell's vocal opposition to central party selection procedures.
I think you will find Carswell will now find excuses to forget about his vocal opposition to all manner of things. Standing 'localism' on its head is hardly a good start for his principles. He is the UKIP candidate because he sees it as his right. If he believed in localism he would have put himeslf forward in an open primary. He suddenly finds it both convenient and self servingly necessary to sneer at the conservative party but its the tories who are pursuing open primaries.
Mr. Isam, the same Carswell argued against joining UKIP before he, er, joined UKIP. And spoke in favour of local democracy, before being imposed on the local party by UKIP central office. He's also hardly a disinterested commentator.
Cameron's consistently said he'd prefer to stay in the EU, and that if he wins a referendum would be held in 2017. Carswell's main concern appears to be the career of Carswell.
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
the issue will not be 'put to bed for a generation'.
You mean the Scottish Government has lied again?
If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date? FOLLOWING A ‘NO’ VOTE Answer: The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.
Weren't you expressing a hope that the newly enfranchised non-voters would continue being politically involved the other day? That's what I'm referring to.
If what governments said was the only writ in town, 'nationalism' would be currently stone dead, deceased, an ex -ism.
Indeed. Vide the Westminster mob telling us that crown sovereignty means ... er, one gmt can't bind the next.
In any case, in Ms V's selected excerpt, the SG said only that 1. there were no arrangements for another referendum, and 2. it was an opportunity that came once in a generation - they didn't say when the generation ended, October 2014 or whenever. Not a shade of a fib anywhere. Especially given the possibility that Westminster would try and suppress a second referendum, just as they did with the first. (I wonder what Wendy Alexander is feeling right now??)
carnyx, the truth is of no concern to "maggie", she just needs to be vitriolic to Scotland and SNP. Something bad must have happened to her in Scotland to make her so bitter and twisted and hateful towards the country, or maybe she is just a Tory.
I think you'll find its not me who comes across as vitriolic, bitter and twisted......and as usual, conflating disagreeing with the SNP with 'hating Scotland'.....are you one of the YESNP's Brown Shirts?
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
LOL, unionist politician is tormented by public opinion disagreeing with him. Unionists demand gualags are opened for people who do not agree with Jim Murphy, how dare people have opinions that are not state sponsored and approved. Stalker bares all
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
Death threats to Messrs Salmond and Sillars, too, don't forget (the first proven in a court of law).
Mr. Tyndall, one might argue a party advocating departure from the EU fighting against a party promising a referendum is also stupid*.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
Nope because we know that Cameron is only using the promise of a referendum to win next year and that the real aim - of leaving the EU - will never be achieved as long as he is PM. He is the problem not the solution.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
Mr. Tyndall, one might argue a party advocating departure from the EU fighting against a party promising a referendum is also stupid*.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
Nope because we know that Cameron is only using the promise of a referendum to win next year and that the real aim - of leaving the EU - will never be achieved as long as he is PM. He is the problem not the solution.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
I do not understand your point. Putting the issue to a referendum means that Cameron does not get to decide as it becomes a matter for the British people as a whole. Do you think that Cameron would renege on his promise to hold the referendum?
Carnyx No, it just suggests that if you put up a No Thanks poster on a council estate you are asking for a smashed window, far better to secretly deliver a few leaflets (which was why the economist poll showed more Scots have received leaflets from the No Campaign than from Yes)
the issue will not be 'put to bed for a generation'.
You mean the Scottish Government has lied again?
If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date? FOLLOWING A ‘NO’ VOTE Answer: The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.
Weren't you expressing a hope that the newly enfranchised non-voters would continue being politically involved the other day? That's what I'm referring to.
If what governments said was the only writ in town, 'nationalism' would be currently stone dead, deceased, an ex -ism.
Indeed. Vide the Westminster mob telling us that crown sovereignty means ... er, one gmt can't bind the next.
In any case, in Ms V's selected excerpt, the SG said only that 1. there were no arrangements for another referendum, and 2. it was an opportunity that came once in a generation - they didn't say when the generation ended, October 2014 or whenever. Not a shade of a fib anywhere. Especially given the possibility that Westminster would try and suppress a second referendum, just as they did with the first. (I wonder what Wendy Alexander is feeling right now??)
carnyx, the truth is of no concern to "maggie", she just needs to be vitriolic to Scotland and SNP. Something bad must have happened to her in Scotland to make her so bitter and twisted and hateful towards the country, or maybe she is just a Tory.
I think you'll find its not me who comes across as vitriolic, bitter and twisted......and as usual, conflating disagreeing with the SNP with 'hating Scotland'.....are you one of the YESNP's Brown Shirts?
The woman requested that she was not filmed asking the question as it may have cost her her job. When is it ok to film somebody who has made such a request?
Mr. Isam, the same Carswell argued against joining UKIP before he, er, joined UKIP. And spoke in favour of local democracy, before being imposed on the local party by UKIP central office. He's also hardly a disinterested commentator.
Cameron's consistently said he'd prefer to stay in the EU, and that if he wins a referendum would be held in 2017. Carswell's main concern appears to be the career of Carswell.
I don't like UKIPs line of arguing it was a by election so it didn't matter much... They should have just said it was common sense for Carswell to be the candidate
Saying that, Lord should button it and accept the facts. He was going to lose the election in clacton so accept the offer of another seat... His chances of becoming an mp have probably improved
the issue will not be 'put to bed for a generation'.
You mean the Scottish Government has lied again?
If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date? FOLLOWING A ‘NO’ VOTE Answer: The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.
Weren't you expressing a hope that the newly enfranchised non-voters would continue being politically involved the other day? That's what I'm referring to.
If what governments said was the only writ in town, 'nationalism' would be currently stone dead, deceased, an ex -ism.
Indeed. Vide the Westminster mob telling us that crown sovereignty means ... er, one gmt can't bind the next.
In any case, in Ms V's selected excerpt, the SG said only that 1. there were no arrangements for another referendum, and 2. it was an opportunity that came once in a generation - they didn't say when the generation ended, October 2014 or whenever. Not a shade of a fib anywhere. Especially given the possibility that Westminster would try and suppress a second referendum, just as they did with the first. (I wonder what Wendy Alexander is feeling right now??)
carnyx, the truth is of no concern to "maggie", she just needs to be vitriolic to Scotland and SNP. Something bad must have happened to her in Scotland to make her so bitter and twisted and hateful towards the country, or maybe she is just a Tory.
I think you'll find its not me who comes across as vitriolic, bitter and twisted......and as usual, conflating disagreeing with the SNP with 'hating Scotland'.....are you one of the YESNP's Brown Shirts?
the issue will not be 'put to bed for a generation'.
You mean the Scottish Government has lied again?
If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date? FOLLOWING A ‘NO’ VOTE Answer: The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.
Weren't you expressing a hope that the newly enfranchised non-voters would continue being politically involved the other day? That's what I'm referring to.
If what governments said was the only writ in town, 'nationalism' would be currently stone dead, deceased, an ex -ism.
carnyx, the truth is of no concern to "maggie", she just needs to be vitriolic to Scotland and SNP. Something bad must have happened to her in Scotland to make her so bitter and twisted and hateful towards the country, or maybe she is just a Tory.
I think you'll find its not me who comes across as vitriolic, bitter and twisted......and as usual, conflating disagreeing with the SNP with 'hating Scotland'.....are you one of the YESNP's Brown Shirts?
Yes and wasn't it lucky they had someone lucky enough to be in place to focus on and film a guy in front of Murphy take an egg out of his pocket , walk behind Murphy and hit him on the back rather than front , then disappear. They have photo's so easy to find the person who did it , I could bet now , Murphy will not contact police , no-one from BT will contact police as it would mean they would catch the perpetrator and the truth may come out. Maybe someone from YES will complain to the police and embarrass Murphy and BT.
Mr. Isam, the same Carswell argued against joining UKIP before he, er, joined UKIP. And spoke in favour of local democracy, before being imposed on the local party by UKIP central office. He's also hardly a disinterested commentator.
Cameron's consistently said he'd prefer to stay in the EU, and that if he wins a referendum would be held in 2017. Carswell's main concern appears to be the career of Carswell.
I don't like UKIPs line of arguing it was a by election so it didn't matter much... They should have just said it was common sense for Carswell to be the candidate
Saying that, Lord should button it and accept the facts. He was going to lose the election in clacton so accept the offer of another seat... His chances of becoming an mp have probably improved
Isam, I don't know if I mentioned this before (and although we clash fairly often as UKIP and LD) but I've always appreciated your independent streak of thinking.
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
Death threats to Messrs Salmond and Sillars, too, don't forget (the first proven in a court of law).
Carnyx, they were just jolly japes from cuddly unionists. You forgot 80 year old man beaten up badly by NO thugs and death threats at YES offices.
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Could you possibly do one and go stalk someone else. You sound like a sad boring friendless spinster trying to latch onto someone on a web site.
So that's a "no" then - no data, just bile, prejudice invective and ignorance.
Which I shall take great pleasure in continuing to highlight.
Post some polling data and prove your point - or come across as a vacuous frightened windbag.
Your choice.
Moderator when are you going to be consistent and get these lunatics off my back. This idiot needs locking up somewhere dark in a straightjacket. At least ask loonies like her and JJ et al to post to each other and leave me in peace to discuss topics with intelligent people
Running to teacher?
Why not post polling data to back up these "intelligent discussions" you claim you want to have?
Lunatic STALKER
Still no polling data? And here's me thinking you wanted intelligent conversation...
Where is JACKW when you need someone to beg the moderator and OGH to save you from lunatics and ne'erdowells
Genius Malc! I though demented abuse was a good way of harming the Yes campaign, but throwing in crybaby to the mix makes it even more effective. Keep up the good work, your United Kingdom needs you on such sparkling form!
Mr. Tyndall, one might argue a party advocating departure from the EU fighting against a party promising a referendum is also stupid*.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
Nope because we know that Cameron is only using the promise of a referendum to win next year and that the real aim - of leaving the EU - will never be achieved as long as he is PM. He is the problem not the solution.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
Mr. Tyndall, one might argue a party advocating departure from the EU fighting against a party promising a referendum is also stupid*.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
Nope because we know that Cameron is only using the promise of a referendum to win next year and that the real aim - of leaving the EU - will never be achieved as long as he is PM. He is the problem not the solution.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
I do not understand your point. Putting the issue to a referendum means that Cameron does not get to decide as it becomes a matter for the British people as a whole. Do you think that Cameron would renege on his promise to hold the referendum?
Well that's clear at least. So what is the UKIP masterplan to secure our withdrawal from the EU? What plausible trajectory of events will culminate in our leaving?
The learning for UKIP from Scotland is that it is not enough to want out. You must carefully plan for and articulate a credible alternative. Neither SNP or UKIP has done this yet.
Not sure "alternative" is quite the right word in relation to the EU. What is it that we have as members of the EU that we would be denied if we were out? There is obviously significant scope for playing up uncertainties about trade dependent jobs, and perhaps a bit of scaremongering about holidays (and more nuanced arguments about having to sign up to the bulk of the EU programme but have no influence over it) but nobody will doubt that the UK is perfectly capable of standing on its own as a viable state. And there would be few arguments about whether the UK will have less money to spend as a result of losing EU subsidies.
The trade dependent jobs argument is so dodgy. There are several countries with free trade agreements with the EU despite not being members.
European countries? There are 28 EU countries. The only significant Europen country which is not formally part of the single market and single market rules is Switzerland and that now finds itslef in dispute. It is edging towards re-agreeing free movement of labour and has only recently granted jobs access to Croatia. Norway is not in the EU but poart of the single market it obeys EU rules it is part of free movement of labour and it pays. The EU is not going to go away and if we walk out we would still have to deal with it and have no say in what it did or how it thought.
The reality despite the hysteria is that life would be little different outside the EU. We must hope so since the alternative is loss of inward investment and the export of jobs.
HurstLlama Clinton won 49% in 1996, and would have won more if not for Perot, in 1997 and 2001 Blair won well over 40% both times. In this year's Euros, UKIP's best election so far, they won 27.5% on a 34% turnout, the common ground is not so common!
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
Death threats to Messrs Salmond and Sillars, too, don't forget (the first proven in a court of law).
Discraceful! Were they organised by local Better Together groups, like Murphy's?
Can't remember when a politician was physically beaten in the street.
First Murphy and now Galloway physically assaulted by political extremists. Dark days for democracy and free speech.
LOL, drama queen.
It wasn't by any chance you that assaulted Murphy was it?
He was not assaulted , he had an egg thrown at him. He is a big jessie and lucky it was not a half brick. I am far too intelligent to be throwing eggs at Westminster troughing warmongerers. I would have used my rapier wit , scintillating sarcasm and rapid repartee to show him up for the turnip that he is , the pen is mightier than the sword.
@old_labour It's nothing to do with the legality. If the guy doing the filming was from the "Yes" camp, he wants the video to show you in the worst possible light. While he has a right to film, the politician has a right to not "perform" for him/her. As an example. The camera man knows the identity of the next questioner, and that they are a "plant". Should the politician carry on and take the risk, or ask the partisan film maker to stop?
the issue will not be 'put to bed for a generation'.
You mean the Scottish Government has lied again?
If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date? FOLLOWING A ‘NO’ VOTE
It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.
Weren't you expressing a hope that the newly enfranchised non-voters would continue being politically involved the other day? That's what I'm referring to.
If what governments said was the only writ in town, 'nationalism' would be currently stone dead, deceased, an ex -ism.
Indeed. Vide the Westminster mob telling us that crown sovereignty means ... er, one gmt can't bind the next.
carnyx, the truth is of no concern to "maggie", she just needs to be vitriolic to Scotland and SNP. Something bad must have happened to her in Scotland to make her so bitter and twisted and hateful towards the country, or maybe she is just a Tory.
I think you'll find its not me who comes across as vitriolic, bitter and twisted......and as usual, conflating disagreeing with the SNP with 'hating Scotland'.....are you one of the YESNP's Brown Shirts?
The woman asking the question had asked not to be filmed because she was afraid of retaliation - given the circumstances is that unreasonable?
LIAR. It was Murphy that complained as a distraction because he as usual could not answer a simple question. The woman spoke to the guy and even took her hood down and laughed with him , after Murphy tried to say the guy was heckling an old age pensioner, she was miffed that Murphy was calling her an old age pensioner to try and look good in his filming supporting old people.
Carnyx No, it just suggests that if you put up a No Thanks poster on a council estate you are asking for a smashed window, far better to secretly deliver a few leaflets (which was why the economist poll showed more Scots have received leaflets from the No Campaign than from Yes)
they use call centres in England, only campaign they have, leaflets have to be delivered by paid activists from England and Wales or sent by mail using Tory slush money. It is lack of support that limits their campaign.
Many thanks, David. I'll merely add that the UK may be the only country in the world that operates three different PR systems at "second tier" level (one in Scotland/Wales, another in Northern Ireland and a third for the London Mayoralty). This is either pragmatic or quaint, I haven't made up my mind yet...
That's because few countries have had a democratic government as heinous as Labour from 1997-2013 which was quite prepared to select a different electoral system not according to some notion of "fairness" but purely based on which system they thought most likely to advantage their party
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
Death threats to Messrs Salmond and Sillars, too, don't forget (the first proven in a court of law).
Discraceful! Were they organised by local Better Together groups, like Murphy's?
Lunatic stalker on the loose making up fairy tales
I agree with you, David, about the sort of PR that would be best, if by "best" we mean maximising voter choice and minimizing the influence of Party machines. (I presume you are in effect looking across the Irish Channel.)
There are only two problems with it. First, it could mean that no one ever has to reach out and talk (and even more important, listen) to a constituent of different political views. We might well all hunker down in our bunkers like little children terrified of the dark. (We see quite enough of that on here, at least, as it is.)
Second, and a consequence of the first, does it not actually increase the number of safe seats (at Party if not at candidate level)? Elections in which the machines work wholly to deliver their supporters, real or imaginary, to the polling booths, rather than making at least a token effort to persuade the uncommitted, don't strike me particularly favourably.
This is not to deny your basic point, that an MP elected on less than, say, 30% of the poll has an issue of legitimacy in a single-seat contest. But is PR the fix for that?
A better way to fix that is to have single constituencies, but with French style run offs.
So on May 15th all parties campaign, then the top two candidates go into a second round two weeks later (perhaps with a NOTA option as third choice!). It makes tactical voting more explicit, but retains the constituency link and ensures the winner has 50% support, even if grudgingly.
The two week break allows for fresh campaigning and also a pause for thought if one of the top two is controversial.
The public understand the system as participation in X factor etc voting shows!
I disagree. Run-offs just encourage tactical voting, negative campaigning and gaming the system in a way that's even worse than AV. These are scourges of modern politics and encourage people to believe their votes should be used against X or to stop Y, rather than as a positive force; a deeply corrosive attitude which leaves whatever government emerges as one people didn't really support and has consequent problems of legitimacy. Only SV, which is the worst of all worlds, is worse.
Surprised by your suggestion that voters could vote either for a party or for a candidate. A more normal approach would be that you vote for a party and then have the option of voting for a candidate order with the default party votes being case in list order
@old_labour It's nothing to do with the legality. If the guy doing the filming was from the "Yes" camp, he wants the video to show you in the worst possible light. While he has a right to film, the politician has a right to not "perform" for him/her. As an example. The camera man knows the identity of the next questioner, and that they are a "plant". Should the politician carry on and take the risk, or ask the partisan film maker to stop?
Murphy is crap in any case so easy to show him up. He is a labour faux socialist goon. Happy to fool the idiots by kidding on he is a socialist and taking patsy questions from plants, but not happy with real questions , his duplicity being filmed and out of his depth away from lock in labour patsy meetings. People in Scotland are finally waking up to these faux Tories in the labour party and the parasites do not like it and especially not in their heartlands where they used to weigh their votes. They have been found out and are wanting.
PS It is perfectly legal to film anyone but usually foolhardy if they threaten to put your camera where the sun does not shine. Personally buffoons like murphy should not be allowed to litter the streets spouting their lies, far more offensive than being filmed.
HurstLlama Clinton won 49% in 1996, and would have won more if not for Perot, in 1997 and 2001 Blair won well over 40% both times. In this year's Euros, UKIP's best election so far, they won 27.5% on a 34% turnout, the common ground is not so common!
Mr Hyfud, fair enough. I'll not comment on the US politics as I don't know enough about them to do so. I would say Blair in 1997 was a classic example of a politician who had seized the common ground.
As for UKIP, we are talking here of a work in progress. It remains a fact that it is a growing party, the big ones seem to be static or shrinking. Furthermore as I know personally UKIP is picking up support on the council estates as well as the privately owned developments. You are looking backwards I am looking to the future.
There was a time when a party could win in Surrey and in the industrial cities of the North, how did they do that? Labour can't today and nor can the Conservatives but maybe, just maybe, a party that can appeal to the common ground can.
What sickens me now is there appears to be no follow-up. Even now the authorities are frozen by political correctness.
There are at least 250 Pakistani rapists walking the streets of Rotherham, peopl who we surely have ample evidence to indict and send down to long jail sentences.
Where are the arrests? where are the investigations?
I'm very surprised that SYP hasn't announced it is "setting up a taskforce" to reopen each of the cases in the report to examine whether there is sufficient evidence for one or more prosecutions.
You'd have thought that would be 101 in damage mitigation from their own perspective.
Mr. Isam, the same Carswell argued against joining UKIP before he, er, joined UKIP. And spoke in favour of local democracy, before being imposed on the local party by UKIP central office. He's also hardly a disinterested commentator.
Cameron's consistently said he'd prefer to stay in the EU, and that if he wins a referendum would be held in 2017. Carswell's main concern appears to be the career of Carswell.
I don't like UKIPs line of arguing it was a by election so it didn't matter much... They should have just said it was common sense for Carswell to be the candidate
Saying that, Lord should button it and accept the facts. He was going to lose the election in clacton so accept the offer of another seat... His chances of becoming an mp have probably improved
Isam, I don't know if I mentioned this before (and although we clash fairly often as UKIP and LD) but I've always appreciated your independent streak of thinking.
Is nationality an acceptable way to filter immigrants?? Could we, for instance, have a moratorium on immigrants from Pakistan, even if they were spouses of British nationals? Or a quota?
The Americans have an interview process, which seems to work reasonably well.
But I'm not sure we could trust the interviewers in the UK to make selections that we would all view as appropriate.
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
Death threats to Messrs Salmond and Sillars, too, don't forget (the first proven in a court of law).
Carnyx, they were just jolly japes from cuddly unionists. You forgot 80 year old man beaten up badly by NO thugs and death threats at YES offices.
Och, I ken them fine - just didn't want to overload the argument with facts.
Incidentally, how many NO shops are there compared to YES ones? Can't be many, or the Yes side are much nicer than the No side, if the lack of reports of vandalism/threats is anything to go by, given that No get aerated about things like a small Yes sticker being put on the window of a Labour MP's office in Edinburgh, and tried to blame local youth gang spray slogans on Yes. There was a nasty incident in a Glasgow No shop, IIRC, some weeks ago but that was a very Murphy's Egg-like incident - walk in, say something nasty, walk out again. Nothing sustained like poor Mr Galloway's incident (not related to indyref, apparently, but to ME politics) or the chap who was reportedly tailchasing Mr Salmond's car (Better Tailgater as the Sun put it ...).
This is a specific ethnic issue more than a religious one, says a community worker in a city near Rotherham. Young Pakistani men are increasingly alienated from their conservative parents, who want them to marry girls from back home (often the Mirpur district in Kashmir) and also from religious leaders, who often cannot speak English. Discussions of sex are taboo at home and in the mosque, so some learn about it from pornography, about misogyny from rap music and come to view white women as fair game (though the report also suggests Pakistani girls were abused, and that this was hushed up).
This seems quite a realistic view of the events. It highlights the terrible mistake made by the left in allowing and indeed encouaging immigrants to stay seperate and not integrate.
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
Death threats to Messrs Salmond and Sillars, too, don't forget (the first proven in a court of law).
Carnyx, they were just jolly japes from cuddly unionists. You forgot 80 year old man beaten up badly by NO thugs and death threats at YES offices.
Och, I ken them fine - just didn't want to overload the argument with facts.
Incidentally, how many NO shops are there compared to YES ones? Can't be many, or the Yes side are much nicer than the No side, if the lack of reports of vandalism/threats is anything to go by, given that No get aerated about things like a small Yes sticker being put on the window of a Labour MP's office in Edinburgh, and tried to blame local youth gang spray slogans on Yes. There was a nasty incident in a Glasgow No shop, IIRC, some weeks ago but that was a very Murphy's Egg-like incident - walk in, say something nasty, walk out again. Nothing sustained like poor Mr Galloway's incident (not related to indyref, apparently, but to ME politics) or the chap who was reportedly tailchasing Mr Salmond's car (Better Tailgater as the Sun put it ...).
HurstLlama Clinton won 49% in 1996, and would have won more if not for Perot, in 1997 and 2001 Blair won well over 40% both times. In this year's Euros, UKIP's best election so far, they won 27.5% on a 34% turnout, the common ground is not so common!
Mr Hyfud, fair enough. I'll not comment on the US politics as I don't know enough about them to do so. I would say Blair in 1997 was a classic example of a politician who had seized the common ground.
As for UKIP, we are talking here of a work in progress. It remains a fact that it is a growing party, the big ones seem to be static or shrinking. Furthermore as I know personally UKIP is picking up support on the council estates as well as the privately owned developments. You are looking backwards I am looking to the future.
There was a time when a party could win in Surrey and in the industrial cities of the North, how did they do that? Labour can't today and nor can the Conservatives but maybe, just maybe, a party that can appeal to the common ground can.
Politics is a lot more national today than it was.
The Chamberlains famously held Birmingham more or less by themselves (for Liberals then Conservatives).
But as I said before, class as a predictor of voting choice is in long term decline.
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
Death threats to Messrs Salmond and Sillars, too, don't forget (the first proven in a court of law).
Discraceful! Were they organised by local Better Together groups, like Murphy's?
No idea. I'd assumed completely the opposite, and that they were lone idiots, so your suggestion was a surprise to me. But if you think it plausible then I'll need to think again.
MalcolmG Galloway Must be the only man in the country vociferously anti Israel, anti Thatcher, anti Blair and anti Coalition AND vociferously anti Salmond. I disagree with him on most things but his 'JustSayNaw' campaign has helped show the No campaign is a broad church and for that he should be commended
MalcolmG Evidence? In any case, however they are delivered 1 poster saying Yes or NO is of no information to anyone, a leaflet full of one side's arguments is far more persuasive
Perhaps when you get a moment you could pen for us all what values we should hold? It strikes me as about as fascist as you can get and about as far away from what I understand liberal values to be
How about:
Right to vote Right to free speech Right to a fair trial Equality before the law, regardless of sex, colour or religion Freedom to worship as you see fit*
* This is not the same as the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on others and should not impinge on rights such as free speech
@malcolmg I notice that anyone who isn't pro independence seems to attract basically the same epithets. You should develop a version of your favourites, and just paste it at the end of the persons name . Think of the increased production you could gain?
What sickens me now is there appears to be no follow-up. Even now the authorities are frozen by political correctness.
There are at least 250 Pakistani rapists walking the streets of Rotherham, peopl who we surely have ample evidence to indict and send down to long jail sentences.
Where are the arrests? where are the investigations?
I'm very surprised that SYP hasn't announced it is "setting up a taskforce" to reopen each of the cases in the report to examine whether there is sufficient evidence for one or more prosecutions.
You'd have thought that would be 101 in damage mitigation from their own perspective.
I agree with your reasoning but I am not surprised that South Yorks Police seem frozen. Too many of the decision makers are probably standing over shredders as we speak. I strongly suspect self-preservation has long ago overtaken any sense of duty.
What absolutely amazes me is the apparent complete inactivity and apparent silence of the Home Office. The SoS cannot of course interfere with any specific case but he/she can order investigations to take place involving outside forces. Mrs Free, earlier, suggested that there ought by now to be a task force of detectives from other forces and CPS lawyers from outside the region swarming all over the files and making arrests. Yet not a peep of activity or even concern do we see. Why not I wonder?
HurstLlama UKIP is a populist party of protest, not one of government in my view, certainly not in its own right, if in the 2014 Euro elections 72.5% of those voting did not support it, let alone the 66% who did not vote, it hardly suggests it is the party of the future!
Malcolm G If you had bothered to read the article, you would see it was from a poll of Scottish voters' contact with the 2 campaigns that I extracted that information
It does not change the reality
A poll does not "change the reality". What "reality" is that then? The one inside your head?
My scary stalker is back on the scene
Got polling data that refutes the data in the Economist?
Or are you going to continue insulting those who have temerity to disagree with you - like the YESNP Rent-a-mob?
Could you possibly do one and go stalk someone else. You sound like a sad boring friendless spinster trying to latch onto someone on a web site.
What a pathetic waste of space you are. Stop lobbing the equivalent of eggs around indiscriminately and just give a simple answer to a simple question.
What sickens me now is there appears to be no follow-up. Even now the authorities are frozen by political correctness.
There are at least 250 Pakistani rapists walking the streets of Rotherham, peopl who we surely have ample evidence to indict and send down to long jail sentences.
Where are the arrests? where are the investigations?
I'm very surprised that SYP hasn't announced it is "setting up a taskforce" to reopen each of the cases in the report to examine whether there is sufficient evidence for one or more prosecutions.
You'd have thought that would be 101 in damage mitigation from their own perspective.
I agree with your reasoning but I am not surprised that South Yorks Police seem frozen. Too many of the decision makers are probably standing over shredders as we speak. I strongly suspect self-preservation has long ago overtaken any sense of duty.
What absolutely amazes me is the apparent complete inactivity and apparent silence of the Home Office. The SoS cannot of course interfere with any specific case but he/she can order investigations to take place involving outside forces. Mrs Free, earlier, suggested that there ought by now to be a task force of detectives from other forces and CPS lawyers from outside the region swarming all over the files and making arrests. Yet not a peep of activity or even concern do we see. Why not I wonder?
Yes, Mr L I find myself asking the same question.
The silence from the Miliband and Cameron is deafening.
This is a specific ethnic issue more than a religious one, says a community worker in a city near Rotherham. Young Pakistani men are increasingly alienated from their conservative parents, who want them to marry girls from back home (often the Mirpur district in Kashmir) and also from religious leaders, who often cannot speak English. Discussions of sex are taboo at home and in the mosque, so some learn about it from pornography, about misogyny from rap music and come to view white women as fair game (though the report also suggests Pakistani girls were abused, and that this was hushed up).
This seems quite a realistic view of the events. It highlights the terrible mistake made by the left in allowing and indeed encouaging immigrants to stay seperate and not integrate.
It was actually a terrible mistake by the left to encourage any immigration from backward cultures so different from our own. Did they truly celebrate diversity or was it the votes they wanted?
[older stuff snipped]You genuinely believe that from the context of the statement that the start of the generation mentioned could be construed as any other time than when the statement was written?
Edit to add. I note you have taken generation to definitively be 25 years, not the 20-25 given in the link, otherwise you would have been unable to dance on your pin head.
Oh yes, I do. It's a matter of point of view. If you have been waiting a long time for indyref, and many folk have grown old and died and their grandchildren grown up, something like he 1970s is the natural perspective. You may well have a different one starting from when the indy issue came onto the wider British scene, ca. 2011, and that is also perfectly reasonable for you.
Surely the natural starting point for "once in a generation" is who gets to vote.
The only people who are not having the chance to express their views are those under 16. So the break point for when there should be another referendum is when a substantial proportion of the electorate (i.e. those under 16 and those not yet born) have not had this chance.
A good example is the EU - no one born after 1960 has had the opportunity to vote on membership. According to wiki, only 28.3% of the population were born before 1960.
HurstLlama Clinton won 49% in 1996, and would have won more if not for Perot, in 1997 and 2001 Blair won well over 40% both times. In this year's Euros, UKIP's best election so far, they won 27.5% on a 34% turnout, the common ground is not so common!
Mr Hyfud, fair enough. I'll not comment on the US politics as I don't know enough about them to do so. I would say Blair in 1997 was a classic example of a politician who had seized the common ground.
As for UKIP, we are talking here of a work in progress. It remains a fact that it is a growing party, the big ones seem to be static or shrinking. Furthermore as I know personally UKIP is picking up support on the council estates as well as the privately owned developments. You are looking backwards I am looking to the future.
There was a time when a party could win in Surrey and in the industrial cities of the North, how did they do that? Labour can't today and nor can the Conservatives but maybe, just maybe, a party that can appeal to the common ground can.
Politics is a lot more national today than it was.
The Chamberlains famously held Birmingham more or less by themselves (for Liberals then Conservatives).
But as I said before, class as a predictor of voting choice is in long term decline.
Yes I would agree, so why is the country more divided in terms of representatives it selects for parliament than ever before? Conservatives used to win parliamentary seats in areas from which they are now, probably permanently, excluded. Labour have not a cat in hell's chance of winning in great swathes of the rural or semi rural country.
If politics is more national and class is a declining factor, what is going on? Is it possible for a party to again unite the people in the cities and in the countryside/smaller towns? If so what will it take? I think my thesis of the Common Ground holds (actually I nicked it off of Sir Keith Joseph), but you may have a better idea.
I said a while ago here that UKIP would one day replace The Conservative Party; I still believe that, and the momentum seems to be increasing. The Tories have let themselves be outflanked for the first time in their history.
That's what the Ditchers, and the Ultras and the Tories (i.e. the non-Peelite Conservatives) thought.
But Peel and Disraeli and Salisbury prevailed in the end.
Mr. Llama, predominantly negative approaches by both the political and media spheres may be to blame. It's easier, short-term, to attack than defend. We see it all the time. But long term you don't create supporters but people who are anti- your opposition. Neutrals grow disenchanted because parties try not to lose votes rather than actually win them. The motivation for many seems to be voting against the other side (I know this is true of me, although that's more Balls than Labour) than for their own.
That's the way UKIP is different. Although some will be voting against X, lots seem to be enthused and actually voting *for* the purples.
HurstLlama Clinton won 49% in 1996, and would have won more if not for Perot, in 1997 and 2001 Blair won well over 40% both times. In this year's Euros, UKIP's best election so far, they won 27.5% on a 34% turnout, the common ground is not so common!
Mr Hyfud, fair enough. I'll not comment on the US politics as I don't know enough about them to do so. I would say Blair in 1997 was a classic example of a politician who had seized the common ground.
As for UKIP, we are talking here of a work in progress. It remains a fact that it is a growing party, the big ones seem to be static or shrinking. Furthermore as I know personally UKIP is picking up support on the council estates as well as the privately owned developments. You are looking backwards I am looking to the future.
There was a time when a party could win in Surrey and in the industrial cities of the North, how did they do that? Labour can't today and nor can the Conservatives but maybe, just maybe, a party that can appeal to the common ground can.
Politics is a lot more national today than it was.
The Chamberlains famously held Birmingham more or less by themselves (for Liberals then Conservatives).
But as I said before, class as a predictor of voting choice is in long term decline.
Yes I would agree, so why is the country more divided in terms of representatives it selects for parliament than ever before? Conservatives used to win parliamentary seats in areas from which they are now, probably permanently, excluded. Labour have not a cat in hell's chance of winning in great swathes of the rural or semi rural country.
If politics is more national and class is a declining factor, what is going on? Is it possible for a party to again unite the people in the cities and in the countryside/smaller towns? If so what will it take? I think my thesis of the Common Ground holds (actually I nicked it off of Sir Keith Joseph), but you may have a better idea.
I suspect some of it may be that parties are more tactical in their campaigning now. 326 is the finish line and that's what they're concerned about rather than fighting seats nationally.
The rise of the Lib Dems might well be a factor in scooping up possible seats. Somewhere like Camborne in Cornwall has a history of flipping between Lab and Con, but more recently has flipped Lib and Con (with Labour being eliminated from Cornwall).
(This could be true equally of seats the LDs aren't winning, but taking enough votes to stop them flipping the other way).
But I'm speculating rather than certain.
(I also wonder if as a society we're now different demographically, in terms of the class make-up of rural vs urban etc, but that's an undeveloped thought).
Saddened/MikeK The Tories will contest the by-election as Cameron and the Association chairman have made clear, an open primary should be used to pick the candidate to contrast with Carswell being foisted on the local UKIP branch by UKIP's NEC. All Tory MPs should be made to visit Clacton at least once before polling day to campaign, if they do not it may be helpful in identifying any potential defectors to UKIP
He wasn't foisted. You could perhaps have claimed that if he had simply changed parties but not stood for re-election - as plenty of Labour and Tory MPs have done in the past.
As it is you are trying to turn an honorable act into something you can use to attack him. Which is frankly rather sad.
It will be amusing to see how Cameron reacts to Tory MPs who go Missing in action during the By-election. What is he going to do? Throw them out and so drive them into UKIP?
Surely you can accept that Lord has been shabbily treated?
Clearly Carswell was always going to run for this seat - what Farage should have done is, of course, informed Lord beforehand and promised him support in finding another suitable seat.
As it is, I can't see a better example of "foisted" than replacing a constituency candidate for the general election with someone totally different for a by-election (even if it is "within the rules")
Mr. Llama, predominantly negative approaches by both the political and media spheres may be to blame. It's easier, short-term, to attack than defend. We see it all the time. But long term you don't create supporters but people who are anti- your opposition. Neutrals grow disenchanted because parties try not to lose votes rather than actually win them. The motivation for many seems to be voting against the other side (I know this is true of me, although that's more Balls than Labour) than for their own.
That's the way UKIP is different. Although some will be voting against X, lots seem to be enthused and actually voting *for* the purples.
Pfsh. UKIP are no less negative than anyone else. Being on the attack is what Farage loves best.
Murphy made that claim, so it cannot be verified. If it was true, he should have used the opportunity to stress the importance of joining a trade union and improving workers' rights to prevent such things happening.
If you do not want everyone to know what you say or think, do not do it on the street in front of other people especially when just about everyone these days has some sort of phone with photo and video capabilities.
I think he is losing it because he cannot control the message when he is meeting, but not engaging with members of the public.
At 2 minutes 49 minutes into the video, Murphy is demanding that someone (an opponent?) stop filming a woman asking him a question.
When was it illegal to take a photo or video footage on a street at a public gathering?
I assume the footage of that video was taken by one of his own supporters, so he wants only footage taken of which he approves. Very strange.
The woman requested that she was not filmed asking the question as it may have cost her her job. When is it ok to film somebody who has made such a request?
You'd have thought that would be 101 in damage mitigation from their own perspective.
I agree with your reasoning but I am not surprised that South Yorks Police seem frozen. Too many of the decision makers are probably standing over shredders as we speak. I strongly suspect self-preservation has long ago overtaken any sense of duty.
What absolutely amazes me is the apparent complete inactivity and apparent silence of the Home Office. The SoS cannot of course interfere with any specific case but he/she can order investigations to take place involving outside forces. Mrs Free, earlier, suggested that there ought by now to be a task force of detectives from other forces and CPS lawyers from outside the region swarming all over the files and making arrests. Yet not a peep of activity or even concern do we see. Why not I wonder?
Yes, Mr L I find myself asking the same question.
The silence from the Miliband and Cameron is deafening.
And the lack of action inexplicable.
I'll tell you why not. Apart from the fact that the CPS is, in my experience, largely useless (though the NW Prosecutor, himself of Pakistani background is a shining exception and an example of what good public service means), the victims have no voice, no-one is making a fuss for them, there are no MPs shouting about this and demanding action, there are no telegenic celebrities and their PR gurus all over the papers demanding action. These girls are damaged, frightened, probably inarticulate. They're not Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller and gorgeous looking and able to present themselves as lovely victims we'd all like to shake hands with and be photographed with.
Where is Tom Watson MP? He was active enough when talking about child abuse rings in Parliament involving MPs and high-ups in the Establishment. Would it be cynical to say that if there were a get-Murdoch angle in this he'd be all over it like a rash?
Ah no: it was a Murdoch paper which broke and pursued the story despite the best efforts of Labour politicians in Rotherham to suppress the story. Oh dear.
Where is the party that likes to speak for the poor and vulnerable and the weak? Missing in action. Not all the poor and weak and vulnerable are worthy of help, it seems.
Where are the feminists? Who can say?
People care in a "Oh my God: this is appalling!" sort of way but amongst our authorities seemingly not enough to do anything.
And then there are all those in those very same authorities who are busy polishing their excuses, saving themselves, keeping their heads down and hoping that it will blow over before anyone points the finger at them and asks them why they weren't doing their bloody job.
Mr. Llama, predominantly negative approaches by both the political and media spheres may be to blame. It's easier, short-term, to attack than defend. We see it all the time. But long term you don't create supporters but people who are anti- your opposition. Neutrals grow disenchanted because parties try not to lose votes rather than actually win them. The motivation for many seems to be voting against the other side (I know this is true of me, although that's more Balls than Labour) than for their own.
That's the way UKIP is different. Although some will be voting against X, lots seem to be enthused and actually voting *for* the purples.
A very good and perspicacious post, Mr. Dancer.
*Annecdote Alert *
Herself, High Church CofE and High Conservative and who hates my involvement with UKIP, said this morning whilst reading the paper, "Cameron is a fool" and, a little later, "The sooner we are out of the EU the better". Even the cat nearly fell off his chair. She will be out campaigning for UKIP yet.
LuckyGuy1983 UKIP would never replace the Tories, the only way they could become the major party of the centre-right under FPTP would be to merge with the Tories and effectively take them over, as the Canadian Reform Party did with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Canadian Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. Of course Labour has a party to its left flank too, the Greens, and the Greens have already taken one seat off Labour, Brighton Pavilion, UKIP have yet to win one parliamentary seat off the Tories at an election. If you include Galloway winning Bethnal Green and Bradford Labour has already lost 3 MPs to more leftwing parties, the Tories have not lost 1 MP to a more rightwing party
I do not see the Greens as a left wing flanking attack on Labour, because I do not see Labour's left wing as having a tendency to vote green. I could be wrong -I haven't studied it. I also see them as against history somewhat. Energy security is key to the future, and we have saddled ourselves with useless expensive turbines and little else. Meanwhile sympathy for environmentalism will continue to be worn down by Governments and supranational bodies imposing green taxes and regulations while the earth cools. Ecology is a message for prosperous times when it can be afforded. (Not saying we shouldn't care for our planet -we absolutely should, just saying where I see perceptions going). Let's remember the Greens only got their MEPs because of AIFE stealing votes from UKIP.
Voters voted for AIFE because they wanted to vote for AIFE.
They didn't "steal" votes from anyone: votes do not belong to the political parties but are lent to them, election by election.
Yes I would agree, so why is the country more divided in terms of representatives it selects for parliament than ever before? Conservatives used to win parliamentary seats in areas from which they are now, probably permanently, excluded. Labour have not a cat in hell's chance of winning in great swathes of the rural or semi rural country.
If politics is more national and class is a declining factor, what is going on? Is it possible for a party to again unite the people in the cities and in the countryside/smaller towns? If so what will it take? I think my thesis of the Common Ground holds (actually I nicked it off of Sir Keith Joseph), but you may have a better idea.
Seats are more demographically homogeneous than in the past, so class isn't really a declining factor, and the impact of local campaigning has diminished, making it tougher for parties to keep pockets of support in non-traditional areas.
I doubt it's possible to unite the public. Too fundamentally divided economically.
Mr. Llama, indeed, the sooner we're out of the EU the better.
I fear that, today, UKIP are playing the part of Latins in the Fourth Crusade. The Turks are your enemy, not the Byzantines! Doge Enrico Farago might be making progress but it's against your natural allies not your real adversary.
Mr. Tyndall, one might argue a party advocating departure from the EU fighting against a party promising a referendum is also stupid*.
*Yes, yes, you don't trust Cameron. You can trust his backbenchers to topple him if he fails to deliver on that, though.
Meanwhile, UKIP are in danger of being Labour's very own Ralph Nader.
Nope because we know that Cameron is only using the promise of a referendum to win next year and that the real aim - of leaving the EU - will never be achieved as long as he is PM. He is the problem not the solution.
He is akin to a guide who promises to take half way up a mountain and then intends to push you off.
Isn't Carswell's stated criticism of Cameron on the referendum inconsistent with his decision to join UKIP? UKIP want to leave the EU under all circumstances - they only want a referendum because they think they can win it. To criticise Cameron for apparently not seeking genuine reform, just enough to win a referendum, is a criticism someone in principled favour of the EU (reformed) should make, not someone who wants to leave the EU. Surely nobody in UKIP is contemplating a scenario where they might campaign to stay in, if the reforms offered are "genuine"? (and none of this revert to a simple 'trading arrangement' nonsense - that obviously is never going to happen - even if we left the EU!)
Correct. And there is no evidence that Cameron is not determined on genuine reform. This is just a made up excuse by Carswell. And what Cameron or anybody thinks does not matter since there will be a referendum where everyone can vote NO if they want. Carswell remarks are absurd since no matter how generous the terms, UKIP want out. His remarks imply that there would be a circumstance where he might vote YES - this puts him at odds with UKIP straight off.
As it is for some reason (and we do not know what he discussed with the millionaire money man behind Farage) Carswell is now campaigning in a way that will allow Miliband to take us deeper into the EU.
So we have UKIP actively promoting a Europhile Labour victory and basing this on a policy which would make little difference to ouir lives even nif siuccessful. What are their motives. I cannot think of one.
@CarlottaVance Murphy was pointing at one person asking him/her to stop filming, not his own side, I assume. There seems to be a lack of realism there about the modern media and modern technology.
For all I know, the woman had a unionist employer unless Jim knew what the question was in advance or he might have been concerned about his response being recorded.
The woman asking the question had asked not to be filmed because she was afraid of retaliation - given the circumstances is that unreasonable?
Yes, like I said a rare event that was triggered (opinion is split as to whether it was inevitable) by a massive party implosion, alongside a massive change in the electorate (and the reasons go on.
It takes a lot is an understatement.
There are certain immutable laws that govern life, and one such is divergence. If Darwin is to be believed, the giraffe and the horse were once one animal. They diverged to remain successful. As do branches of a tree. Convergence is against nature. A cross between the Tories and Labour (without the nasty bits of either) sounds nice in the short term, but the end result is a recipe for being trampled on by both sides, not to mention useless politically, no change, no real solutions. A middle flank is a defunct animal. Thatcher knew this instinctively. Today's Conservative party doesn't. Some of them are delighted to have been outflanked on the right, as part of their ludicrous 'detoxification' strategy. Very silly. The only real solution would have been to use their vastly dominant position, roll over and squash UKIP by assimilating them. Cameron has wrecked that.
That's a very interesting point about nature (although I doubt it's truth there too(, it's just got sod all to do with politics.
Politics is a market place. There's quite a few supermarkets between Aldi and Waitrose for example.
Likewise compare the Labour party's success when they came off their far-left perch to a more centrist position.
The idea that a wider flank position is more useful than a centrist one is bizarre.
It's about owning political territory, and that is set as much by your opponent parties as your own.
But look at those supermarkets you mention -who is doing well, and who is being squeezed? Doing well -Aldi, Lidl. M&S food. Being squeezed -Morrisons, Sainsbury's -even the mighty Tesco is faltering somewhat. Either end doing well. Middle being squeezed. Same with vast numbers of other 'middle' brands that try to cover all bases -divergent branches come off, the middle is left behind. You speak of a marketplace -I am a marketer and my theory comes from the marketing literature. 'The Mushy Middle' is a place to be avoided by sensible marketers.
Either end is currently doing well in terms of current trend, but in overall terms the big four, occupying various spots in the middle are still massively ahead of them.
Was New Labour too mushy middle?
Fascinating discussion; I'll hopefully do a FPT post later this evening.
Comments
In a wider view they could've run a selection process if they wanted to (I think they should have if Carswell was game for it and was pretty certain to win).
Added on to this is Carswell's vocal opposition to central party selection procedures.
Why not post polling data to back up these "intelligent discussions" you claim you want to have?
Cameron's consistently said he'd prefer to stay in the EU, and that if he wins a referendum would be held in 2017. Carswell's main concern appears to be the career of Carswell.
My stalker will be along soon to prove the theory
Alex Salmond remains trapped in a currency quagmire with no way out in sight
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/alex-salmond-remains-trapped-in-a-currency-quagmire-with-no-way-out-in-sight/
To Carnyx - yes, another good article, and encouraging to read that most of the campaign has been conducted in a more civilised manner than Murphy's tormentors behaved.
When was it illegal to take a photo or video footage on a street at a public gathering?
I assume the footage of that video was taken by one of his own supporters, so he wants only footage taken of which he approves. Very strange.
Stalker bares all
Saying that, Lord should button it and accept the facts. He was going to lose the election in clacton so accept the offer of another seat... His chances of becoming an mp have probably improved
Maybe someone from YES will complain to the police and embarrass Murphy and BT.
Roll on September
Well that's clear at least. So what is the UKIP masterplan to secure our withdrawal from the EU? What plausible trajectory of events will culminate in our leaving?
Norway is not in the EU but poart of the single market it obeys EU rules it is part of free movement of labour and it pays.
The EU is not going to go away and if we walk out we would still have to deal with it and have no say in what it did or how it thought.
The reality despite the hysteria is that life would be little different outside the EU. We must hope so since the alternative is loss of inward investment and the export of jobs.
It's nothing to do with the legality. If the guy doing the filming was from the "Yes" camp, he wants the video to show you in the worst possible light.
While he has a right to film, the politician has a right to not "perform" for him/her.
As an example. The camera man knows the identity of the next questioner, and that they are a "plant". Should the politician carry on and take the risk, or ask the partisan film maker to stop?
Good article on the volunteers fighting the Ukrainian invasion of Donbass.
People in Scotland are finally waking up to these faux Tories in the labour party and the parasites do not like it and especially not in their heartlands where they used to weigh their votes. They have been found out and are wanting.
PS It is perfectly legal to film anyone but usually foolhardy if they threaten to put your camera where the sun does not shine.
Personally buffoons like murphy should not be allowed to litter the streets spouting their lies, far more offensive than being filmed.
As for UKIP, we are talking here of a work in progress. It remains a fact that it is a growing party, the big ones seem to be static or shrinking. Furthermore as I know personally UKIP is picking up support on the council estates as well as the privately owned developments. You are looking backwards I am looking to the future.
There was a time when a party could win in Surrey and in the industrial cities of the North, how did they do that? Labour can't today and nor can the Conservatives but maybe, just maybe, a party that can appeal to the common ground can.
You'd have thought that would be 101 in damage mitigation from their own perspective.
But I'm not sure we could trust the interviewers in the UK to make selections that we would all view as appropriate.
Incidentally, how many NO shops are there compared to YES ones? Can't be many, or the Yes side are much nicer than the No side, if the lack of reports of vandalism/threats is anything to go by, given that No get aerated about things like a small Yes sticker being put on the window of a Labour MP's office in Edinburgh, and tried to blame local youth gang spray slogans on Yes. There was a nasty incident in a Glasgow No shop, IIRC, some weeks ago but that was a very Murphy's Egg-like incident - walk in, say something nasty, walk out again. Nothing sustained like poor Mr Galloway's incident (not related to indyref, apparently, but to ME politics) or the chap who was reportedly tailchasing Mr Salmond's car (Better Tailgater as the Sun put it ...).
leaflets have to be delivered by paid activists from England and Wales or sent by mail using Tory slush money
The Chamberlains famously held Birmingham more or less by themselves (for Liberals then Conservatives).
But as I said before, class as a predictor of voting choice is in long term decline.
Right to vote
Right to free speech
Right to a fair trial
Equality before the law, regardless of sex, colour or religion
Freedom to worship as you see fit*
* This is not the same as the freedom to impose your religious beliefs on others and should not impinge on rights such as free speech
I notice that anyone who isn't pro independence seems to attract basically the same epithets.
You should develop a version of your favourites, and just paste it at the end of the persons name .
Think of the increased production you could gain?
What absolutely amazes me is the apparent complete inactivity and apparent silence of the Home Office. The SoS cannot of course interfere with any specific case but he/she can order investigations to take place involving outside forces. Mrs Free, earlier, suggested that there ought by now to be a task force of detectives from other forces and CPS lawyers from outside the region swarming all over the files and making arrests. Yet not a peep of activity or even concern do we see. Why not I wonder?
The silence from the Miliband and Cameron is deafening.
And the lack of action inexplicable.
The only people who are not having the chance to express their views are those under 16. So the break point for when there should be another referendum is when a substantial proportion of the electorate (i.e. those under 16 and those not yet born) have not had this chance.
A good example is the EU - no one born after 1960 has had the opportunity to vote on membership. According to wiki, only 28.3% of the population were born before 1960.
Cut out the personal insults, direct or indirect, and cut them out now.
I'll delete the first few as a generous bit of leeway to give people a chance to read this post.
After that I'm going to have to start handing out enforced breaks from PB.
If politics is more national and class is a declining factor, what is going on? Is it possible for a party to again unite the people in the cities and in the countryside/smaller towns? If so what will it take? I think my thesis of the Common Ground holds (actually I nicked it off of Sir Keith Joseph), but you may have a better idea.
But Peel and Disraeli and Salisbury prevailed in the end.
That's the way UKIP is different. Although some will be voting against X, lots seem to be enthused and actually voting *for* the purples.
I can only see things getting more daft in the last 18 days.
The rise of the Lib Dems might well be a factor in scooping up possible seats. Somewhere like Camborne in Cornwall has a history of flipping between Lab and Con, but more recently has flipped Lib and Con (with Labour being eliminated from Cornwall).
(This could be true equally of seats the LDs aren't winning, but taking enough votes to stop them flipping the other way).
But I'm speculating rather than certain.
(I also wonder if as a society we're now different demographically, in terms of the class make-up of rural vs urban etc, but that's an undeveloped thought).
Be prepared.
Clearly Carswell was always going to run for this seat - what Farage should have done is, of course, informed Lord beforehand and promised him support in finding another suitable seat.
As it is, I can't see a better example of "foisted" than replacing a constituency candidate for the general election with someone totally different for a by-election (even if it is "within the rules")
If you do not want everyone to know what you say or think, do not do it on the street in front of other people especially when just about everyone these days has some sort of phone with photo and video capabilities.
I think he is losing it because he cannot control the message when he is meeting, but not engaging with members of the public.
Where is Tom Watson MP? He was active enough when talking about child abuse rings in Parliament involving MPs and high-ups in the Establishment. Would it be cynical to say that if there were a get-Murdoch angle in this he'd be all over it like a rash?
Ah no: it was a Murdoch paper which broke and pursued the story despite the best efforts of Labour politicians in Rotherham to suppress the story. Oh dear.
Where is the party that likes to speak for the poor and vulnerable and the weak? Missing in action. Not all the poor and weak and vulnerable are worthy of help, it seems.
Where are the feminists? Who can say?
People care in a "Oh my God: this is appalling!" sort of way but amongst our authorities seemingly not enough to do anything.
And then there are all those in those very same authorities who are busy polishing their excuses, saving themselves, keeping their heads down and hoping that it will blow over before anyone points the finger at them and asks them why they weren't doing their bloody job.
The conspiracy between the parties collapsed in a single morning.
No wonder they require time to think what on Earth to do.
*Annecdote Alert *
Herself, High Church CofE and High Conservative and who hates my involvement with UKIP, said this morning whilst reading the paper, "Cameron is a fool" and, a little later, "The sooner we are out of the EU the better". Even the cat nearly fell off his chair. She will be out campaigning for UKIP yet.
I've no doubt the campaigning will be intense as you say, but I'm pretty sure we won't have 3 sodding years of campaigning.
They didn't "steal" votes from anyone: votes do not belong to the political parties but are lent to them, election by election.
I doubt it's possible to unite the public. Too fundamentally divided economically.
I fear that, today, UKIP are playing the part of Latins in the Fourth Crusade. The Turks are your enemy, not the Byzantines! Doge Enrico Farago might be making progress but it's against your natural allies not your real adversary.
Carswell remarks are absurd since no matter how generous the terms, UKIP want out. His remarks imply that there would be a circumstance where he might vote YES - this puts him at odds with UKIP straight off.
As it is for some reason (and we do not know what he discussed with the millionaire money man behind Farage) Carswell is now campaigning in a way that will allow Miliband to take us deeper into the EU.
So we have UKIP actively promoting a Europhile Labour victory and basing this on a policy which would make little difference to ouir lives even nif siuccessful. What are their motives. I cannot think of one.
Murphy was pointing at one person asking him/her to stop filming, not his own side, I assume. There seems to be a lack of realism there about the modern media and modern technology.
For all I know, the woman had a unionist employer unless Jim knew what the question was in advance or he might have been concerned about his response being recorded.
The woman asking the question had asked not to be filmed because she was afraid of retaliation - given the circumstances is that unreasonable?
"Personally buffoons like murphy should not be allowed to litter the streets spouting their lies, far more offensive than being filmed."
As one of the biggest fans of the Nat posters (even though not a supporter of the cause) that post is just loopy!