Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ComRes marginals poll is out

SystemSystem Posts: 11,008
edited September 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ComRes marginals poll is out

The sample size is 1,000 people in total, so much smaller than the Lord Ashcroft marginal polls we’re used to, these are the same seats ComRes have polled earlier on this year.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2014
    Wowsers to the "Ed puts me off voting Labour" %.

    Again, Cameron beats Ed, but as so often public marginally prefer a Labour government to Tory one.

    Imagine Ed as leader of the Tories, they would be at Lib Dem levels !!!
  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    The BBC red button on my TV hasn't been working today.
    Is there something wrong with it generally, or is it just me?
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    Is this meant to be bad for ukip? People in marginals will be voting for their party won't they? Not their main rivals

    "For those looking for further evidence for tactical voting against UKIP, 51% say I’d never consider voting UKIP, 33% say I would consider voting UKIP at the General Election next year.

    When asked specifically about their constituency 51% say I’d never vote for UKIP, even if they could win in my constituency, whilst 30% I’d vote for UKIP if I thought they could win in my constituency."
  • Options
    JBriskinJBriskin Posts: 2,380
    JohnLoony said:

    The BBC red button on my TV hasn't been working today.
    Is there something wrong with it generally, or is it just me?

    BBC1 apparently 6 mins behind schedule as well...

    I blame PB...

  • Options
    For those looking for further evidence for tactical voting against UKIP, 51% say I’d never consider voting UKIP, 33% say I would consider voting UKIP at the General Election next year.

    How has this got anything to do with tactical voting? it doesn't mention voting for another party other than the one a voter supports let alone asking whether Labour voters would vote Tory hindering Labour's chances of winning the election or asking Tory voters if they would vote Labour hindering Tory chances ( and hindering them moreso than if UKIP won).

    What this says is 51% would not vote UKIP. Now if I recall in the past we have had polls which have suggested over 60% would not vote Tory so its hardly a significant statistic.

    The most interesting figure is that 30% would consider voting UKIP which is a much higher figure than I would have thought in highly competitive marginal seats. After all few of UKIPs target seats would have been included in this poll so given the potential that suggests it must be seen as encouraging for UKIP.
  • Options
    NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    SeanT said:


    Islamism seeks the slaughter and/or enslavement of all non-Muslim peoples.

    You sought the imprisonment without trial of muslims. Noone doubts your Britishness though.
  • Options
    SeanT.

    Can we pick this up in the morning, I'm off to bed.

    I'm sure my answers will make you feel more optimistic.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901

    For those looking for further evidence for tactical voting against UKIP, 51% say I’d never consider voting UKIP, 33% say I would consider voting UKIP at the General Election next year.

    How has this got anything to do with tactical voting? it doesn't mention voting for another party other than the one a voter supports let alone asking whether Labour voters would vote Tory hindering Labour's chances of winning the election or asking Tory voters if they would vote Labour hindering Tory chances ( and hindering them moreso than if UKIP won).

    What this says is 51% would not vote UKIP. Now if I recall in the past we have had polls which have suggested over 60% would not vote Tory so its hardly a significant statistic.

    The most interesting figure is that 30% would consider voting UKIP which is a much higher figure than I would have thought in highly competitive marginal seats. After all few of UKIPs target seats would have been included in this poll so given the potential that suggests it must be seen as encouraging for UKIP.

    Give TSE the benefit of the doubt, he might have meant it was good for ukip, he probably didn't misread it as you suggest
  • Options
    ArtistArtist Posts: 1,882
    Not very helpful for the Tories from ITV News, I wonder why they commissioned this.
  • Options
    JBriskin said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The BBC red button on my TV hasn't been working today.
    Is there something wrong with it generally, or is it just me?

    BBC1 apparently 6 mins behind schedule as well...

    I blame PB...

    Flightplan (Jodie Foster) still on, started just over an hour ago
  • Options

    For those looking for further evidence for tactical voting against UKIP, 51% say I’d never consider voting UKIP, 33% say I would consider voting UKIP at the General Election next year.

    How has this got anything to do with tactical voting? it doesn't mention voting for another party other than the one a voter supports let alone asking whether Labour voters would vote Tory hindering Labour's chances of winning the election or asking Tory voters if they would vote Labour hindering Tory chances ( and hindering them moreso than if UKIP won).

    What this says is 51% would not vote UKIP. Now if I recall in the past we have had polls which have suggested over 60% would not vote Tory so its hardly a significant statistic.

    The most interesting figure is that 30% would consider voting UKIP which is a much higher figure than I would have thought in highly competitive marginal seats. After all few of UKIPs target seats would have been included in this poll so given the potential that suggests it must be seen as encouraging for UKIP.

    You're misreading my comment.

    The 30% figure is a good thing for UKIP since they are only polling 17% in this poll.

    So where UKIP can project them as potential winners in a seat they should get a boost in that seat as people won't see it as a wasted vote.
  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Simple question. Third time lucky, I hope:

    The BBC red button on my TV hasn't been working today.
    Is there something wrong with it generally, or is it just me?

    All it takes is for somebody to try the red button on their TV, see if it's working, and report back. I use the red button to check the news headlines about 8,537 times a day.
  • Options

    For those looking for further evidence for tactical voting against UKIP, 51% say I’d never consider voting UKIP, 33% say I would consider voting UKIP at the General Election next year.

    How has this got anything to do with tactical voting? it doesn't mention voting for another party other than the one a voter supports let alone asking whether Labour voters would vote Tory hindering Labour's chances of winning the election or asking Tory voters if they would vote Labour hindering Tory chances ( and hindering them moreso than if UKIP won).

    What this says is 51% would not vote UKIP. Now if I recall in the past we have had polls which have suggested over 60% would not vote Tory so its hardly a significant statistic.

    The most interesting figure is that 30% would consider voting UKIP which is a much higher figure than I would have thought in highly competitive marginal seats. After all few of UKIPs target seats would have been included in this poll so given the potential that suggests it must be seen as encouraging for UKIP.

    You're misreading my comment.

    The 30% figure is a good thing for UKIP since they are only polling 17% in this poll.

    So where UKIP can project them as potential winners in a seat they should get a boost in that seat as people won't see it as a wasted vote.
    Yes I see that but I still don't see where the tactical voting against UKIP comes into it and how UKIPs good news is linked to it?
  • Options
    NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312


    Interestingly you ignore the bit of my comment, which points out your ignorance and stupidity when it comes to the gays.

    Well, if I keep banging on about gays I'd sound like a nutter, wouldn't I? Far better to leave that to you.


    I also, described myself in other ways last week, I believed I referenced my cream jacket and my epilepsy attack inducing shirt.

    If you think that dressing like a pimp increases your popularity in Kent, don't let me stop you.
  • Options
    JohnLoony said:

    Simple question. Third time lucky, I hope:

    The BBC red button on my TV hasn't been working today.
    Is there something wrong with it generally, or is it just me?

    All it takes is for somebody to try the red button on their TV, see if it's working, and report back. I use the red button to check the news headlines about 8,537 times a day.

    Not the red button, but yesterday the "freeview" guide on my TV wasn't working, though it was OK today.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    JohnLoony said:

    Simple question. Third time lucky, I hope:

    The BBC red button on my TV hasn't been working today.
    Is there something wrong with it generally, or is it just me?

    All it takes is for somebody to try the red button on their TV, see if it's working, and report back. I use the red button to check the news headlines about 8,537 times a day.

    Mine is working
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited September 2014
    SeanT said:

    SeanT.

    Can we pick this up in the morning, I'm off to bed.

    I'm sure my answers will make you feel more optimistic.

    Indeed! night night.

    And salaaam aleikum.


    The tragedy engulfing the Levant is personally horrific, for me. Just about my favourite city in the world was Aleppo. The suk! THE SUK OF ALEPPO.

    Full of incredibly friendly, funny, cynical, witty, clever people. Likewise every city in the Lebanon.

    Awful.

    Awful awful awful. And the West has just made it worse, with the Iraq war. Tschk.

    And on that sombre note: g'nite

    I highly suggest watching the Vice News doc they have just released. It will probably make you very sad to see what is left of the suk of Aleppo.
  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Meanwhile, I notice that the polling in the LibDem target/marginal seats has got UKIP mostly in 2nd or 3rd place in the general polling question, but mostly in 3rd or 4th place in the constituency-specific polling. None of them has UKIP in 1st place.
  • Options
    PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    She was brilliant as Tahlulla in Bugsy Malone.

    JBriskin said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The BBC red button on my TV hasn't been working today.
    Is there something wrong with it generally, or is it just me?

    BBC1 apparently 6 mins behind schedule as well...

    I blame PB...

    Flightplan (Jodie Foster) still on, started just over an hour ago
  • Options
    JohnLoony said:

    Meanwhile, I notice that the polling in the LibDem target/marginal seats has got UKIP mostly in 2nd or 3rd place in the general polling question, but mostly in 3rd or 4th place in the constituency-specific polling. None of them has UKIP in 1st place.

    You'll find UKIP do better in UKIP targets seats, than LD target seats.
  • Options
    Isn't that a 5.5% swing? Helpfully, they also have a national poll out, which shows a 6.7% swing:

    http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_28th_September_2014_8723.pdf

    This poll looks a lot closer to what you'd expect in the marginals than their previous marginals polling...
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,213
    edited September 2014
    Plato said:

    She was brilliant as Tahlulla in Bugsy Malone.

    JBriskin said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The BBC red button on my TV hasn't been working today.
    Is there something wrong with it generally, or is it just me?

    BBC1 apparently 6 mins behind schedule as well...

    I blame PB...

    Flightplan (Jodie Foster) still on, started just over an hour ago
    Don't forget:

    "Well, Clarice. Have the lambs stopped screaming?"

    :)
  • Options
    Please note - the swing figure is 5.5% and this has now been amended in the header above
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,957
    So Cameron preferred to Miliband as PM and the LDs to UKIP as coalition partners, yet still no support for a Tory majority government. I remain of the view another Tory-LD coalition is more likely than not
  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited September 2014
    Iraq/Syria

    The 1st major integrated air land offensive in Iraq should be underway within days in the Sunni triangle.

    There are rumours of an aircraft shot down in Iraq but its nightime and it could be anything. The stories copme from Ramadi, a critical battleground city and one identified months ago as a key IS target.

    Meanwhile, keep an eye on the reported new friendly relations between IS and the Al Nusra front, the local loose al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Previously deadly rivals, I posted on here a number of nights ago that IS had released a number of Nusra front prisoners shortly after Nusra front positions took as much of a battering from the 1st set of US-led airstrkes as IS did.

    I see the Guardian today reports that the two groups are talking.

    Fantastic....
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,957
    Yokel Indeed, the US has struck Al Nusra in Syria with airstrikes, quite sensible they are basically an offshoot of Al Qaeda and even the FSA now disown them and are fighting them, we need to aim to wipe out ISIS and Al Nusra at the same time, and if it means also cooperating with Assad to do so so be it
  • Options
    Y0kel said:

    Iraq/Syria

    The 1st major integrated air land offensive in Iraq should be underway within days in the Sunni triangle.

    There are rumours of an aircraft shot down in Iraq but its nightime and it could be anything. The stories copme from Ramadi, a critical battleground city and one identified months ago as a key IS target.

    Meanwhile, keep an eye on the reported new friendly relations between IS and the Al Nusra front, the local loose al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Previously deadly rivals, I posted on here a number of nights ago that IS had released a number of Nusra front prisoners shortly after Nusra front positions took as much of a battering from the 1st set of US-led airstrkes as IS did.

    I see the Guardian today reports that the two groups are talking.

    Fantastic....

    How long until they fall out with one another again?
  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited September 2014
    HYUFD said:

    Yokel Indeed, the US has struck Al Nusra in Syria with airstrikes, quite sensible they are basically an offshoot of Al Qaeda and even the FSA now disown them and are fighting them, we need to aim to wipe out ISIS and Al Nusra at the same time, and if it means also cooperating with Assad to do so so be it

    Why co-operate with Assad? On a practical level he has nothing to offer. He hasn't been able to shift these guys at all, and ceded larges amount of the east to them as he focusses on a Damascus & NW corridor first approach.

    His army is knackered and heavily dependent on militias, many imported and some of whom in the form of the NDF seem to operate outside of his military structure, leading to occasional clashes with his own forces. To boot the guy has just fired one of his top right hand men, Hafez Makhlouf and this is not the kind of guy he wants turning up against him. Makhlouf has reportedly done a runner with his family.

    Of course the general Western media sources tell you Assad is winning. This is balls, He's surviving. The insurgents cant shift him, but he cant shift them enough either.

    As for the Western strategy of the usual ground-averse approach of going in from the air it can blunt both Nusra and IS but it sure as hell wont finish them, nowhere near. It also killed one of their own top assets in Syria in a recent bombing from the air.

    There is as yet no sign of an intelligence led approach to gradually strangling these outfits, which is the only way to do it long term. Talk of a Sunni Awakening exercise mysteriously formented by the US has fallen on stony ground already. The Sunnis will do it themselves, and many tribes already are turning against them in both Syria and Iraq but the aren't yet buying the US grand plan.

    Outside of this 'Awakening' approach, US ground intelligence assets are miserable. They are being used as targeting assets rather than infiltration. My understanding is that the old method of working through relief agencies in the area is as good as its got in Syria at the moment and so far its use of those tentacles is tactical not strategic.

    Ironically Syria actually presents a less permissive environment as regards support for IS than Iraq where Sunni support does exist. In Syria direct population sympathy for IS is less strong.




  • Options
    Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307

    Y0kel said:

    Iraq/Syria

    The 1st major integrated air land offensive in Iraq should be underway within days in the Sunni triangle.

    There are rumours of an aircraft shot down in Iraq but its nightime and it could be anything. The stories copme from Ramadi, a critical battleground city and one identified months ago as a key IS target.

    Meanwhile, keep an eye on the reported new friendly relations between IS and the Al Nusra front, the local loose al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Previously deadly rivals, I posted on here a number of nights ago that IS had released a number of Nusra front prisoners shortly after Nusra front positions took as much of a battering from the 1st set of US-led airstrkes as IS did.

    I see the Guardian today reports that the two groups are talking.

    Fantastic....

    How long until they fall out with one another again?
    They can fall out but one might take a proportion of the others staff.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    SeanT said:

    I find it difficult to foresee a future for Islam in Europe, unless Islam changes dramatically, or Europe changes dramatically.

    I think the biggest problem we have is that the Muslims that are best integrated are the ones that are least Muslim. You get Muslims that support full gender equality and gay rights, but how many leaders of actual mosques do? I fear the answer is not many.

    You are absolutely correct that Islam needs to change. People say the religion needs a reformation, but it has already had one: Wahhabism is the Lutheranism of Islam. It doesn't need a reformation, it needs an Enlightenment. You need a Muslim equivalent of the Quakers or Reform Judaism. The only way we will get that is by prolonged intellectual assault on every negative tenet of Islam, even the widely held ones (e.g. that Muslim girls shouldn't marry non-Muslims), that doesn't fit in with modern post-Enlightenment society. This will get rid of this mistaken "only the terrorist-types are the problem" philosophy. The traditional defences obviously won't hold water in a public debate, and it will cause people to leave Islam. In response to that, I imagine a reform, Western-compliant Islam will be created. Then those who want to cling to their religion can adopt that. It's the only way.

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Tories 'Genuinely' Worried MP Chris Kelly Will Defect To Ukip":

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/28/ukip-chris-kelly-defection_n_5896972.html
  • Options
    Interesting little minor point from this poll, fewer people would vote for UKIP if they thought they had a chance of winning in their constituency.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Sun_Politics: Nigel Farage bins ‘wag tax’ plan in 48-hour conference u-turn on luxury clobber: http://t.co/BC5wrvAxfZ

    Better get the green ink out...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,138
    If I have got this right then Labour is 5% up from June but only 4% up from where they were in 2010 meaning that in June they were 1% down on their GE score. Does anybody really believe this?

    The obvious solution is that their June 2014 poll was a rogue and that this poll has reverted to the norm. In the current poll compared to the GE the tories being down 7% puts them at the bottom of their current range nationally at 30% but with Labour up only 4 it puts them somewhat lower than their current average at 33%. It would also give a gap of 3 points which again is consistent with current polling.

    I remain to be convinced that anything very special is going on in the marginals.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,138
    edited September 2014
    This would be a good idea because it would be very difficult for Sturgeon to be her own person with Salmond over her shoulder. Although why he would want to go back to Westminster is beyond me.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Senior Labour MPs are joining a backlash against Ed Miliband’s flagship “mansion tax” proposal, as it emerged that the Queen faces paying £1 million a year from the charge.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4220883.ece
  • Options
    FPT Eagles:

    " I'm joining team 2015, to campaign in Rochester and Strood. "

    You would make better use of your time if you asked your local MP what the government was going to do about a certain local issue.

  • Options
    Marginals poll during Labour conference week.... albeit a shambolic one.

    Not good for the blues but let's wait for another in 'normal' times before going all reckless.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Interesting little minor point from this poll, fewer people would vote for UKIP if they thought they had a chance of winning in their constituency.

    I saw that. Didn't quite know how to read it.

    17% will vote them generally
    33% in their constituency
    30% if they think they will win

    Presumably that indicates:

    (A) a bunch of people don't want to be seen to be supporting UKIP generally (ie not part of the 17%) but will vote for them in this specific situation (ie the 33%). This emphasises the protest element rather than the philosophical agreement

    But (B) a bunch of those are "pure protest" and don't want them to actually win...

    Is there another intepretation that works?
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    Senior Labour MPs are joining a backlash against Ed Miliband’s flagship “mansion tax” proposal, as it emerged that the Queen faces paying £1 million a year from the charge.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4220883.ece

    Lets look at some numbers.

    What's the average wage ? £25K perhaps.

    Now at what earnings does 45% income tax apply ? £150K I think.

    So that's 6x average pay.

    Now compare with housing.

    What's the average house price ? £180K perhaps.

    Now at what level would a mansion tax apply ? £2M.

    So that's 11x average house prices.

    Even with a mansion tax there's going to be much less high end property affected than high end income.

    Which is why both Osborne and Cable wanted to bring in a mansion tax in return for getting rid of the highest income tax rate.
  • Options
    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    UKIP negotiating team with Tories: Reckless, Carswell, Farage, Edward II.
  • Options

    FPT Eagles:

    " I'm joining team 2015, to campaign in Rochester and Strood. "

    You would make better use of your time if you asked your local MP what the government was going to do about a certain local issue.

    Well I hope to see him next month.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,322
    DavidL said:

    If I have got this right then Labour is 5% up from June but only 4% up from where they were in 2010 meaning that in June they were 1% down on their GE score. Does anybody really believe this?

    The obvious solution is that their June 2014 poll was a rogue and that this poll has reverted to the norm. In the current poll compared to the GE the tories being down 7% puts them at the bottom of their current range nationally at 30% but with Labour up only 4 it puts them somewhat lower than their current average at 33%. It would also give a gap of 3 points which again is consistent with current polling.

    I remain to be convinced that anything very special is going on in the marginals.

    I was suspicious of the previous ComRes poll since it contradicted the much larger Ashcroft poll. But it's probably true that Labour is doing a better job of identifying and persuading switchers and tactical voters in marginals than the Tories, simply because we're doing a lot of doorstep canvassing and they are mostly not. What they're doing is lots of direct mails, but these don't really work in identifying swing votes (relatively few non-supporters actually reply to the surveys that DMs contain) and like by-election leaflets they have diminishing returns in terms of impact ("What's that letter? Oh, it's just political bumf again"). It's very hard to win an election without a ground game.

    So yes, the improvement since June is probably exagerrated by the last one being an outlier. But there's probably some further progress.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
    Yup. Is why I want to campaign against Reckless

    If any Tory MP defects during Dave's speech....
  • Options
    Charles said:

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
    The Party's feelings are entirely justified but if it wanted a passionate speech denouncing the man's lies, it wasn't a good idea to ask Pinnochio to give it.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    Interesting little minor point from this poll, fewer people would vote for UKIP if they thought they had a chance of winning in their constituency.

    I saw that. Didn't quite know how to read it.

    17% will vote them generally
    33% in their constituency
    30% if they think they will win

    Presumably that indicates:

    (A) a bunch of people don't want to be seen to be supporting UKIP generally (ie not part of the 17%) but will vote for them in this specific situation (ie the 33%). This emphasises the protest element rather than the philosophical agreement

    But (B) a bunch of those are "pure protest" and don't want them to actually win...

    Is there another intepretation that works?
    In the past people have said this about why they voted BNP -- as a safe protest because it was obvious they could never win.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    May be some doubt about King Edward II and the hot poker. Though contemporaries might have thought he was a f**king c**t or just another f**king king.

    http://www.ianmortimer.com/EdwardII/death.htm
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Charles said:

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
    Reckless does seem rather charisma free lobby fodder. It would be interesting to see if the people of Rochester are as annoyed in a November by election as his fellow MPs are.

  • Options

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    Colour me cynical but I still think this is being whipped up to keep the Honourable Member's honourable member off the front pages.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Interesting little minor point from this poll, fewer people would vote for UKIP if they thought they had a chance of winning in their constituency.

    I saw that. Didn't quite know how to read it.

    17% will vote them generally
    33% in their constituency
    30% if they think they will win

    Presumably that indicates:

    (A) a bunch of people don't want to be seen to be supporting UKIP generally (ie not part of the 17%) but will vote for them in this specific situation (ie the 33%). This emphasises the protest element rather than the philosophical agreement

    But (B) a bunch of those are "pure protest" and don't want them to actually win...

    Is there another intepretation that works?
    In the past people have said this about why they voted BNP -- as a safe protest because it was obvious they could never win.
    In the past a friend of mine (a very decent and sophisticated guy) voted BNP - he lived in Tower Hamlets (this was 15? years ago). Turned out - and I believe him - that they were racists: he was voting against the corrupt Labour administration and there wasn't anyone else serious to vote for.
  • Options

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    Colour me cynical but I still think this is being whipped up to keep the Honourable Member's honourable member off the front pages.
    It really isn't.

    Even before the Newmark story came out there was a lot of anger at Reckless.

    It is to do with the timing of his defection.

    Normally I'm a placid chap who isn't prone to swearing however Reckless has brought the worst out in me.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
    It's elicited the reaction from Tory activists that it was designed to. However, to the likes of Charles, what anyone else thinks is of no consequence.

  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,930
    Scott_P said:

    Senior Labour MPs are joining a backlash against Ed Miliband’s flagship “mansion tax” proposal, as it emerged that the Queen faces paying £1 million a year from the charge.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4220883.ece

    Candidate for “You couldn’t make that up!”

    Although sadly it might be true. I still don’t undersdtand why there just aren’t a couple more Council Tax bands. All that would be necessary is to cut the Council grant by the amount raised!
  • Options

    Scott_P said:

    Senior Labour MPs are joining a backlash against Ed Miliband’s flagship “mansion tax” proposal, as it emerged that the Queen faces paying £1 million a year from the charge.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4220883.ece
    Candidate for “You couldn’t make that up!”

    Although sadly it might be true. I still don’t undersdtand why there just aren’t a couple more Council Tax bands. All that would be necessary is to cut the Council grant by the amount raised!

    Morning all,

    I agree with @oldkingcole - council tax bands makes more sense and stops the creation of a new class of tax - effectively a state ground-rent on property.

    As to the Queen, at least there would be no dispute that the property she owns are, indeed, mansions!
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    It's elicited the reaction from Tory activists that it was designed to. However, to the likes of Charles, what anyone else thinks is of no consequence.

    I'm sorry, but WTF?

    That's an incredibly offensive comment with absolutely no basis in reality.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Interesting little minor point from this poll, fewer people would vote for UKIP if they thought they had a chance of winning in their constituency.

    I saw that. Didn't quite know how to read it.

    17% will vote them generally
    33% in their constituency
    30% if they think they will win

    Presumably that indicates:

    (A) a bunch of people don't want to be seen to be supporting UKIP generally (ie not part of the 17%) but will vote for them in this specific situation (ie the 33%). This emphasises the protest element rather than the philosophical agreement

    But (B) a bunch of those are "pure protest" and don't want them to actually win...

    Is there another intepretation that works?
    In the past people have said this about why they voted BNP -- as a safe protest because it was obvious they could never win.
    In the past a friend of mine (a very decent and sophisticated guy) voted BNP - he lived in Tower Hamlets (this was 15? years ago). Turned out - and I believe him - that they were racists: he was voting against the corrupt Labour administration and there wasn't anyone else serious to vote for.
    Yes, this is the danger when parties do not bother to put up candidates in their opponents' safe seats, which happens quite a lot at council elections.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited September 2014

    Charles said:

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
    Yup. Is why I want to campaign against Reckless

    If any Tory MP defects during Dave's speech....
    I want to see this to happen just to see the Tory rage on here!
  • Options
    Charles said:



    It's elicited the reaction from Tory activists that it was designed to. However, to the likes of Charles, what anyone else thinks is of no consequence.

    I'm sorry, but WTF?

    That's an incredibly offensive comment with absolutely no basis in reality.
    You do seem to take offence easily, Charles.

  • Options

    FPT Eagles:

    " I'm joining team 2015, to campaign in Rochester and Strood. "

    You would make better use of your time if you asked your local MP what the government was going to do about a certain local issue.

    Well I hope to see him next month.
    Aside from raising the issue being the right thing to do it would also be useful in increasing your own Twitter profile.
  • Options
    hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Ever get the feeling that Cameron would be totally lost without Osborne. It is Osborne that sets the agenda for the Tories and Cameron just lets him get on with it. Quite often at PMQ's, you can see Cameron talking to Osborne before answering a question. You just wonder whether Cameron would cope without Osborne at his side.

    Today is an example. Tories have had a bad start to their conference, so Osborne is centre stage announcing some pension tax change that would affect very few people. But it creates a positive headline for the right wing media to talk about.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,930
    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
    Yup. Is why I want to campaign against Reckless

    If any Tory MP defects during Dave's speech....
    I want to see this to happen just to see the Tory rage on here!
    Yes it would be fun!

    According to Huffington, referenced upthread, there’s a possibility of the Member for Dudley South defecting at some point. He’s the boyfiriend of Nadine Dorries daughter, apparently, and according to Huffington, she says that if he does defect, "that’s the last roast dinner he’ll have in my house!"
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,930
    edited September 2014
    hucks67 said:

    Ever get the feeling that Cameron would be totally lost without Osborne. It is Osborne that sets the agenda for the Tories and Cameron just lets him get on with it. Quite often at PMQ's, you can see Cameron talking to Osborne before answering a question. You just wonder whether Cameron would cope without Osborne at his side.

    Today is an example. Tories have had a bad start to their conference, so Osborne is centre stage announcing some pension tax change that would affect very few people. But it creates a positive headline for the right wing media to talk about.

    As far as I can see it’s likely to chiefly “benefit” the descendants of those who die shortly after retirement.
  • Options
    Charles said:

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
    Did the Conservative leadership behave honourably to their candidate in the Oldham East byelection ?

    Here's a lesson in life for them:

    If you want loyalty you first have to show loyalty to others.
    If you want to be treated with respect you first have to treat others with respect.

  • Options
    hucks67 said:

    Ever get the feeling that Cameron would be totally lost without Osborne. It is Osborne that sets the agenda for the Tories and Cameron just lets him get on with it. Quite often at PMQ's, you can see Cameron talking to Osborne before answering a question. You just wonder whether Cameron would cope without Osborne at his side.

    Today is an example. Tories have had a bad start to their conference, so Osborne is centre stage announcing some pension tax change that would affect very few people. But it creates a positive headline for the right wing media to talk about.

    Well you could argue they make a very good team. Cameron does the public PR, the emoting and the hand wringing over foreign affairs and Gideon does the difficult stuff like numbers. I seem to vaguely remember this was the general idea with Brown/Blair.
  • Options
    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    I find it difficult to foresee a future for Islam in Europe, unless Islam changes dramatically, or Europe changes dramatically.

    I think the biggest problem we have is that the Muslims that are best integrated are the ones that are least Muslim. You get Muslims that support full gender equality and gay rights, but how many leaders of actual mosques do? I fear the answer is not many.

    You are absolutely correct that Islam needs to change. People say the religion needs a reformation, but it has already had one: Wahhabism is the Lutheranism of Islam. It doesn't need a reformation, it needs an Enlightenment. You need a Muslim equivalent of the Quakers or Reform Judaism. The only way we will get that is by prolonged intellectual assault on every negative tenet of Islam, even the widely held ones (e.g. that Muslim girls shouldn't marry non-Muslims), that doesn't fit in with modern post-Enlightenment society. This will get rid of this mistaken "only the terrorist-types are the problem" philosophy. The traditional defences obviously won't hold water in a public debate, and it will cause people to leave Islam. In response to that, I imagine a reform, Western-compliant Islam will be created. Then those who want to cling to their religion can adopt that. It's the only way.

    A very thoughtful post, and I think it's fair to say that most Muslims in this country would acknowledge the dilemma. A dilemma which is made all the deeper for them because India is adopting Enlightenment values more and more with each generation that passes. And to many Muslims India is as much of a fearful Other as the West is.

    However, in this context "assault" may be an unfortunate word to use. I would prefer to see an engagement or dialogue between the Western view that society and the family are there to enable the happiness of individuals and the pre-Modern (for it is by no means exclusively Muslim) stance that individuals are the means by which families, clans and cultures themselves survive. It is that, rather than creed, which is at issue - no one feels threatened by the Sufism of the likes of Richard Thompson.

  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    Looks bad for the blues. Then again, a marginals poll last term gave them a predicted majority of over 100. These things can change.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,973
    edited September 2014
    Charles said:


    In the past a friend of mine (a very decent and sophisticated guy) voted BNP - he lived in Tower Hamlets (this was 15? years ago). Turned out - and I believe him - that they were racists: he was voting against the corrupt Labour administration and there wasn't anyone else serious to vote for.

    No shit!
    I don't think your mate could have been that sophisticated if that came as a post vote revelation to him.
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Candidate for “You couldn’t make that up!”

    Although sadly it might be true. I still don’t undersdtand why there just aren’t a couple more Council Tax bands. All that would be necessary is to cut the Council grant by the amount raised!

    Didn't the Welsh end up re-rating everyone's property?

    Also, what happens if the tax - presumably set at a punitive level, otherwise what's the point - exceeds the benefit cap? A forced eviction?

    Granted that's happening already to some, but some Labour MPs have an eye on their own seats which happen to have lots of asset millionaires in them.

    As an aside. the better off seem to have a greater proportion of wealth in pension funds than property according to ONS.(page 12)

    ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_368612.pdf
  • Options
    I think the problem for the blues is that the country as a whole has not yet accepted that we have an unsustainable welfare state. People think we should spend more on this or that (usually nurses). If you ask the man in the street what the real-world implications of running a 100bn deficit are you get a blank look. So the Labour party is in serious serious danger of winning the next election. That may be something they come to regret.
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    @Sun_Politics: Nigel Farage bins ‘wag tax’ plan in 48-hour conference u-turn on luxury clobber: http://t.co/BC5wrvAxfZ

    Better get the green ink out...

    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
    Yup. Is why I want to campaign against Reckless

    If any Tory MP defects during Dave's speech....
    I want to see this to happen just to see the Tory rage on here!
    Yes it would be fun!

    According to Huffington, referenced upthread, there’s a possibility of the Member for Dudley South defecting at some point. He’s the boyfiriend of Nadine Dorries daughter, apparently, and according to Huffington, she says that if he does defect, "that’s the last roast dinner he’ll have in my house!"
    Is that some sort of euphemism from Nadine?
  • Options

    Good morning, everyone.

    Looks bad for the blues. Then again, a marginals poll last term gave them a predicted majority of over 100. These things can change.

    I don't set much stall by these ComRes marginals polls whether good or bad.

    The sample size are just too small for the changes to be taken seriously.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,249
    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    I find it difficult to foresee a future for Islam in Europe, unless Islam changes dramatically, or Europe changes dramatically.

    I think the biggest problem we have is that the Muslims that are best integrated are the ones that are least Muslim. You get Muslims that support full gender equality and gay rights, but how many leaders of actual mosques do? I fear the answer is not many.

    You are absolutely correct that Islam needs to change. People say the religion needs a reformation, but it has already had one: Wahhabism is the Lutheranism of Islam. It doesn't need a reformation, it needs an Enlightenment. You need a Muslim equivalent of the Quakers or Reform Judaism. The only way we will get that is by prolonged intellectual assault on every negative tenet of Islam, even the widely held ones (e.g. that Muslim girls shouldn't marry non-Muslims), that doesn't fit in with modern post-Enlightenment society. This will get rid of this mistaken "only the terrorist-types are the problem" philosophy. The traditional defences obviously won't hold water in a public debate, and it will cause people to leave Islam. In response to that, I imagine a reform, Western-compliant Islam will be created. Then those who want to cling to their religion can adopt that. It's the only way.

    The most common mistake made by commentators is to treat "Islam" only as a religion. It is not (just) a religion. It is a political system which seeks to determine not only what people believe but how society is constructed.

    Hence the more problematic integration of some more observant Muslims, with a belief of Islam as that political system, into non-Islamic state societies. A Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, etc can more easily be of that religion, because it is only a religion and not a political system, and be a citizen of whichever country they are in. Such religions of course were, classically, tolerated in Muslim countries, as dhimmi.

    Islam demands more.

    Of course, millions of Muslims do not support the concept of Islam as a political structure and imperative and live their lives as religious Muslims happily and contentedly in non-Muslim societies.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    I find it difficult to foresee a future for Islam in Europe, unless Islam changes dramatically, or Europe changes dramatically.

    SNIP

    A very thoughtful post, and I think it's fair to say that most Muslims in this country would acknowledge the dilemma. A dilemma which is made all the deeper for them because India is adopting Enlightenment values more and more with each generation that passes. And to many Muslims India is as much of a fearful Other as the West is.

    However, in this context "assault" may be an unfortunate word to use. I would prefer to see an engagement or dialogue between the Western view that society and the family are there to enable the happiness of individuals and the pre-Modern (for it is by no means exclusively Muslim) stance that individuals are the means by which families, clans and cultures themselves survive. It is that, rather than creed, which is at issue - no one feels threatened by the Sufism of the likes of Richard Thompson.

    I feel it is an intellectual assault that is needed though. You won't get the change by saying "so it's interesting that you believe men and women are different and should play different but equal roles... tell me more about that..."

    What needs saying is "Islam teaches that women should get less inheritance rights than men, that their word is worth less as a witness and that wives should obey their husbands as subsidiaries. That's terrible - how can you justify that?", leaving the defenders of mainstream Islam spluttering for air.

    When you see Muslim scholars defending this they come out with responses that are weaselly and clearly don't hold water, but the debate is not being had loudly enough for it to actually change minds. Mosques need to know that such challenges are destroying their recruitment prospects and that they need to ditch long-standing beliefs (or "reinterpret" to let them save face). Just like the Catholics did with indulgences and like the Mormons did with polygamy. A softly, softly approach won't cut it. I know people like to believe that a touchy-feely session could sort out the intellectual evolution, but history has shown that it doesn't work that way. Nuanced discussion has its role but you also need loud, brash argument on the points of intellectual weakness.
  • Options

    hucks67 said:

    Ever get the feeling that Cameron would be totally lost without Osborne. It is Osborne that sets the agenda for the Tories and Cameron just lets him get on with it. Quite often at PMQ's, you can see Cameron talking to Osborne before answering a question. You just wonder whether Cameron would cope without Osborne at his side.

    Today is an example. Tories have had a bad start to their conference, so Osborne is centre stage announcing some pension tax change that would affect very few people. But it creates a positive headline for the right wing media to talk about.

    Well you could argue they make a very good team. Cameron does the public PR, the emoting and the hand wringing over foreign affairs and Gideon does the difficult stuff like numbers. I seem to vaguely remember this was the general idea with Brown/Blair.
    You could argue they make a very bad team because neither Cameron nor Osborne is particularly in touch with the average Conservative voter, hence the omnishambles budget, for instance. Or even backbenchers: Mrs Thatcher famously said that every PM needs a Willie. The point about Whitelaw, or Prescott for Blair, is they kept the leader in touch with the "other wing" of the party -- the grandees or the shop stewards.
  • Options

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    Colour me cynical but I still think this is being whipped up to keep the Honourable Member's honourable member off the front pages.
    It really isn't.

    Even before the Newmark story came out there was a lot of anger at Reckless.

    It is to do with the timing of his defection.

    Normally I'm a placid chap who isn't prone to swearing however Reckless has brought the worst out in me.
    I'm not the world's biggest fan of him either, for reasons we both know.
  • Options
    F1: some early thoughts on Japan, and an analysis of why I've been a little bit rubbish in the latter half of the F1 season:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/japan-early-thoughts.html
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Patrick,

    "I think the problem for the blues is that the country as a whole has not yet accepted that we have an unsustainable welfare state."

    That's true but the Blues make it worse by seemingly spending money on their own pet projects. The sustainability appears selective. Any tax cuts are viewed in this way unless directed at the lower-paid.

    Even Ed can occasionally fall over his own feet .and shuffle the ball into an open goal.
  • Options
    Socrates [8.39am] Whilst I agree with what you are driving at, I also think we need to be careful not to be presenting ourselves as indulging in some kind of intellectual imperialism.

    The winding-up of the unaffordable welfare state may also require us to look again at our love affair with individualism, and see the merit in the pre-Enlightenment stance.
  • Options
    Mr. Topping, I think that's accurate. It seems most countries with Muslim majorities have some sort of Islamic aspect to their governance and laws (Turkey would be a notable exception, but has been moving, sadly, away from its traditionally secular approach recently).
  • Options
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    I find it difficult to foresee a future for Islam in Europe, unless Islam changes dramatically, or Europe changes dramatically.

    SNIP

    A very thoughtful post, and I think it's fair to say that most Muslims in this country would acknowledge the dilemma. A dilemma which is made all the deeper for them because India is adopting Enlightenment values more and more with each generation that passes. And to many Muslims India is as much of a fearful Other as the West is.

    However, in this context "assault" may be an unfortunate word to use. I would prefer to see an engagement or dialogue between the Western view that society and the family are there to enable the happiness of individuals and the pre-Modern (for it is by no means exclusively Muslim) stance that individuals are the means by which families, clans and cultures themselves survive. It is that, rather than creed, which is at issue - no one feels threatened by the Sufism of the likes of Richard Thompson.

    I feel it is an intellectual assault that is needed though. You won't get the change by saying "so it's interesting that you believe men and women are different and should play different but equal roles... tell me more about that..."

    What needs saying is "Islam teaches that women should get less inheritance rights than men, that their word is worth less as a witness and that wives should obey their husbands as subsidiaries. That's terrible - how can you justify that?", leaving the defenders of mainstream Islam spluttering for air.

    When you see Muslim scholars defending this they come out with responses that are weaselly and clearly don't hold water, but the debate is not being had loudly enough for it to actually change minds. Mosques need to know that such challenges are destroying their recruitment prospects and that they need to ditch long-standing beliefs (or "reinterpret" to let them save face). Just like the Catholics did with indulgences and like the Mormons did with polygamy. A softly, softly approach won't cut it. I know people like to believe that a touchy-feely session could sort out the intellectual evolution, but history has shown that it doesn't work that way. Nuanced discussion has its role but you also need loud, brash argument on the points of intellectual weakness.
    An interesting post, with much to agree with.
  • Options
    Do we think this pension tax is the last rabbit in George's top hat, or will he pull something else out this morning?
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    Senior Labour MPs are joining a backlash against Ed Miliband’s flagship “mansion tax” proposal, as it emerged that the Queen faces paying £1 million a year from the charge.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4220883.ece

    Margaret Hodge is against it, no self interest there then.
  • Options
    David Miliband pops up in this morning's independent. Funny that....
  • Options
    Patrick said:

    I think the problem for the blues is that the country as a whole has not yet accepted that we have an unsustainable welfare state. People think we should spend more on this or that (usually nurses). If you ask the man in the street what the real-world implications of running a 100bn deficit are you get a blank look. So the Labour party is in serious serious danger of winning the next election. That may be something they come to regret.

    I've been watching videos of some of the speeches from the UKIP Conference. (Ukipwebmaster youtube channel)

    I was a bit disappointed to see Suzanne Evans denouncing the 'bedroom tax'/spare room subsidy, and the notion of getting people off disability benefit.

  • Options
    Mr. Borough, is he defecting to UKIP?
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates [8.39am] Whilst I agree with what you are driving at, I also think we need to be careful not to be presenting ourselves as indulging in some kind of intellectual imperialism.

    The winding-up of the unaffordable welfare state may also require us to look again at our love affair with individualism, and see the merit in the pre-Enlightenment stance.

    I don't really know what "intellectual imperialism" is supposed to mean. No-one is forcing anyone else to believe anything, and we shouldn't shy away from making correct arguments loudly just because those on the other side are mainly from an ethnic minority. That way lies the disaster of multiculturalism. What we need is one national community with one national public debate: not little sub-communities protected from intellectual scrutiny. Let's have the arguments both sides loudly, and let them stand or fall on their merits.
  • Options

    Patrick said:

    I think the problem for the blues is that the country as a whole has not yet accepted that we have an unsustainable welfare state. People think we should spend more on this or that (usually nurses). If you ask the man in the street what the real-world implications of running a 100bn deficit are you get a blank look. So the Labour party is in serious serious danger of winning the next election. That may be something they come to regret.

    I've been watching videos of some of the speeches from the UKIP Conference. (Ukipwebmaster youtube channel)

    I was a bit disappointed to see Suzanne Evans denouncing the 'bedroom tax'/spare room subsidy, and the notion of getting people off disability benefit.

    Labour is a model of financial probity compared to UKIP. But UKIP know they're not going to form a government (and I don't think they'll go into coalition, either).

  • Options
    Socrates said:

    Charles said:

    This Tory MP speaks for the whole party.

    @jimwaterson: Tory MP to BuzzFeed on Mark Reckless defecting: "I can't say the word c**t but he's a f**king c**t who deserves a hot poker up his arse."

    That's the most interesting part to me.

    Carswell's decision people seem to respect. He's liked, he's seen as thoughtful, and he didn't time his departure in a way that seemed to wound his former colleagues.

    Reckless behaved in a much less honourable way.

    It's not so much his departure, as the manner of his leaving that speaks volumes as to his character: and his elicited such a hostile reaction
    Yup. Is why I want to campaign against Reckless

    If any Tory MP defects during Dave's speech....
    I want to see this to happen just to see the Tory rage on here!
    It's possible that the visceral reaction amongst the voluntary party and ex-colleagues will have put off the 2nd defector.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,901
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    I find it difficult to foresee a future for Islam in Europe, unless Islam changes dramatically, or Europe changes dramatically.

    SNIP


    I feel it is an intellectual assault that is needed though. You won't get the change by saying "so it's interesting that you believe men and women are different and should play different but equal roles... tell me more about that..."

    What needs saying is "Islam teaches that women should get less inheritance rights than men, that their word is worth less as a witness and that wives should obey their husbands as subsidiaries. That's terrible - how can you justify that?", leaving the defenders of mainstream Islam spluttering for air.

    When you see Muslim scholars defending this they come out with responses that are weaselly and clearly don't hold water, but the debate is not being had loudly enough for it to actually change minds. Mosques need to know that such challenges are destroying their recruitment prospects and that they need to ditch long-standing beliefs (or "reinterpret" to let them save face). Just like the Catholics did with indulgences and like the Mormons did with polygamy. A softly, softly approach won't cut it. I know people like to believe that a touchy-feely session could sort out the intellectual evolution, but history has shown that it doesn't work that way. Nuanced discussion has its role but you also need loud, brash argument on the points of intellectual weakness.
    You can't go telling millions of people that everything they.believe in is wrong and expect them to shrug their shoulders and say ok.

    What you're asking is for Muslims to stop being Muslims.

    That's not going to happen and why would it?

    It was the fundamental mistake of the people like Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, the architects of multiculturalism. They thought that mass immigration was ok because the immigrants would be so happy to live in England, they would behave like English people culturally in time. For all their progressive views, this was very presumptious of them, a presumption possibly based on a feeling imperial superiority. When whole towns became predominantly Muslim, and they acted like Muslims living in England, even Jenkins rumbled that it wasn't going to work.

    You're trying to square a circle, well intentioned no doubt, but I don't think it is possible. It will carry on as it has been developing
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    If I have got this right then Labour is 5% up from June but only 4% up from where they were in 2010 meaning that in June they were 1% down on their GE score. Does anybody really believe this?

    The obvious solution is that their June 2014 poll was a rogue and that this poll has reverted to the norm. In the current poll compared to the GE the tories being down 7% puts them at the bottom of their current range nationally at 30% but with Labour up only 4 it puts them somewhat lower than their current average at 33%. It would also give a gap of 3 points which again is consistent with current polling.

    I remain to be convinced that anything very special is going on in the marginals.

    I was suspicious of the previous ComRes poll since it contradicted the much larger Ashcroft poll. But it's probably true that Labour is doing a better job of identifying and persuading switchers and tactical voters in marginals than the Tories, simply because we're doing a lot of doorstep canvassing and they are mostly not. What they're doing is lots of direct mails, but these don't really work in identifying swing votes (relatively few non-supporters actually reply to the surveys that DMs contain) and like by-election leaflets they have diminishing returns in terms of impact ("What's that letter? Oh, it's just political bumf again"). It's very hard to win an election without a ground game.

    So yes, the improvement since June is probably exagerrated by the last one being an outlier. But there's probably some further progress.
    I thought one of the 'revelations' of the Scottish vote, was that Labour don't have a ground game either.
  • Options

    Mr. Borough, is he defecting to UKIP?

    LOL. That would be excellent fun.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,930
    chestnut said:

    Candidate for “You couldn’t make that up!”

    Although sadly it might be true. I still don’t undersdtand why there just aren’t a couple more Council Tax bands. All that would be necessary is to cut the Council grant by the amount raised!

    Didn't the Welsh end up re-rating everyone's property?

    Also, what happens if the tax - presumably set at a punitive level, otherwise what's the point - exceeds the benefit cap? A forced eviction?

    Granted that's happening already to some, but some Labour MPs have an eye on their own seats which happen to have lots of asset millionaires in them.

    As an aside. the better off seem to have a greater proportion of wealth in pension funds than property according to ONS.(page 12)

    ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_368612.pdf
    There is no point in setting taxes at a punitive level, as if you do the golden goose will die.

    Unless that’s the point, of course.

    I don’t think that, by and large, Council Tax is set at punitive levels. And, again, generally speaking, people who live in big houses can afford to pay it. And for those who cannot, there are arrangements available.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    The most common mistake made by commentators is to treat "Islam" only as a religion. It is not (just) a religion. It is a political system which seeks to determine not only what people believe but how society is constructed.

    Hence the more problematic integration of some more observant Muslims, with a belief of Islam as that political system, into non-Islamic state societies. A Christian, Jew, Zoroastrian, etc can more easily be of that religion, because it is only a religion and not a political system, and be a citizen of whichever country they are in. Such religions of course were, classically, tolerated in Muslim countries, as dhimmi.

    Islam demands more.

    Of course, millions of Muslims do not support the concept of Islam as a political structure and imperative and live their lives as religious Muslims happily and contentedly in non-Muslim societies.

    Islam is not just a religion; as you say, it can also be a political system. It can also be a basis for culture.

    In this, it is very much like Christianity in Europe until a few centuries ago. As such, religion is not about faith; it is about control. People of faith submit to 'control' from some (often self-certified) religious figures, and act like unquestioning sheep to those figures. People who question those figures are branded as heretics.

    It is a system that has broken down in Europe because that system of deference has been shown to have utterly failed. The same has to happen with Islam, but that is made difficult by the money and power wielded by those with, or wanting, the ultimate control of the various Islamic sects.

    As such, we're in a good state in this country atm. People are free to practice their faith of whatever stripe, but the religions have, or at least should have, minimal control over our lives, and especially over the lives of the non-adherents.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    SeanT said:

    I find it difficult to foresee a future for Islam in Europe, unless Islam changes dramatically, or Europe changes dramatically.

    SNIP


    SNIP
    You can't go telling millions of people that everything they.believe in is wrong and expect them to shrug their shoulders and say ok.

    What you're asking is for Muslims to stop being Muslims.

    That's not going to happen and why would it?

    It was the fundamental mistake of the people like Roy Jenkins and Lord Lester, the architects of multiculturalism. They thought that mass immigration was ok because the immigrants would be so happy to live in England, they would behave like English people culturally in time. For all their progressive views, this was very presumptious of them, a presumption possibly based on a feeling imperial superiority. When whole towns became predominantly Muslim, and they acted like Muslims living in England, even Jenkins rumbled that it wasn't going to work.

    You're trying to square a circle, well intentioned no doubt, but I don't think it is possible. It will carry on as it has been developing
    No, I'm not. I'm asking traditional Islam to be held to scrutiny so painfully that either it is forced to change, or that it causes people to switch to new, moderate forms of Islam that emerge. Religions do this all the time: Southern Baptism in the US emerged as its own denomination over its strident defence of slavery. Yet when slavery became politically unacceptable in the raucous abolitionism after the Civil War, it dropped this bit and continued on. It had to or face oblivion. Religions change all the time, while still pretending they are the originally pure form, in order to keep up with changes in public opinion. Go and read up on Reform Judaism as another example. We just need to up the pressure.
  • Options
    Mr. Isam, different migrant groups have actually integrated that well. Chinese immigrants would seem to be excellent at integrating. The ones I've known (at school) had English first names and were academic high achievers, which tallies with the (positive) stereotype.

    We can't do the test, but a parallel universe where we had the same number of new Muslims but they'd come from Turkey instead of Pakistan would be interesting to observe.

    Numbers do matter, but so does culture.

    The reception they received also encouraged a lack of integration (goes against multi-culturalism to suggest when in Britain do as the British do), and the very high numbers made it easy for enclaves to be formed.
This discussion has been closed.